Life after speed limits - Page 2

Wolfeboro_Baja · 05-01-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The opposition often makes asinine statements like "a speed limit is unnecessary because there are no high speed accidents". The Long Lake accident is proof otherwise, even if a speed limit could not have prevented it.

But, as has been pointed out SEVERAL times, Long Lake is not the subject of discussion here; Lake Winnipesaukee and the speed limit law which will affect everyone that boats on it is the subject!! I don't care what Long Lake has or doesn't have for laws because it has no direct impact on Lake Winnipesaukee. I feel bad for any innocent person that is injured by an idiot boater but what happens on Long Lake is of no concern to me as far as HB-847 goes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If you move to a place just outside of a no-wake-zone you will learn about GFBLs and wake. On plane they may have a reasonable wake. However when they are starting up they have as big a wake as any boat on the lake. All that horsepower has to go somewhere. I'm sure good operators can lessen these effects. But most do not.

That's true of ANY boat with a planing hull, not just performance boats. Sure, when transitioning from headway speed to planing speed, an 18 ft boat might make a slightly smaller wake compared to my 25 ft, which might be a little smaller than a 35 ft, and so on and so on but every boat with a planing hull will make a larger wake while they are in transition compared to the same boat AT headway or ON plane, it's inevitable!!

GEE, we might just as well ban ALL powerboats from the lake!! But then, how would all the island dwellers get to their respective islands?? Don't bother, I know.......rowboats. I'm sure they'll all love that.

Bear Islander · 05-01-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

But, as has been pointed out SEVERAL times, Long Lake is not the subject of discussion here; Lake Winnipesaukee and the speed limit law which will affect everyone that boats on it is the subject!! I don't care what Long Lake has or doesn't have for laws because it has no direct impact on Lake Winnipesaukee. I feel bad for any innocent person that is injured by an idiot boater but what happens on Long Lake is of no concern to me as far as HB-847 goes!

That's true of ANY boat with a planing hull, not just performance boats. Sure, when transitioning from headway speed to planing speed, an 18 ft boat might make a slightly smaller wake compared to my 25 ft, which might be a little smaller than a 35 ft, and so on and so on but every boat with a planing hull will make a larger wake while they are in transition compared to the same boat AT headway or ON plane, it's inevitable!!

GEE, we might just as well ban ALL powerboats from the lake!! But then, how would all the island dwellers get to their respective islands?? Don't bother, I know.......rowboats. I'm sure they'll all love that.

Long Lake is part of the discussion here as far as I am concerned. And it was the correct answer to the question as asked.

chipj29 · 05-02-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Long Lake is part of the discussion here as far as I am concerned. And it was the correct answer to the question as asked.

Lake Winnipesaukee, and a potential speed limit is the discussion here.
And once again, I am sorry I didn't specify LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE when I asked the original question.

What happens on other lakes has NO bearing on what happens on this one. History somewhere else does not equal history here. Sorry.

Bear Islander · 05-02-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Lake Winnipesaukee, and a potential speed limit is the discussion here.
And once again, I am sorry I didn't specify LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE when I asked the original question.

What happens on other lakes has NO bearing on what happens on this one. History somewhere else does not equal history here. Sorry.

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

brk-lnt · 05-02-2008, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

So you admit that high speed fatalities are so rare that a sample size from any 1 lake is not statistically valid? By your logic we must then accumulate all high speed fatalities until we have a number large enough to make people take notice? A very odd logic path.

Winnipesaukee is not as large as the great lakes for example, but it is the only regional lake with enough surface area to safely support high speed (where I'll say high speed is > 60MPH) boat travel. Including regional lakes much smaller skews, rather than supports, the findings. You could most likely show that as lake surface area decreases, probability of fatal accidents increases for a given boat speed/size ratio. A 32' boat operating at 60MPH on Winnipesaukee poses no threat, provided that existing boating laws and regulations are being observed. The same boat at the same speed on Winnisquam is a moderate threat, and on little squam is an outright danger.

codeman671 · 05-02-2008, 08:42 AM

I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard. My problem is that other than his THEORY that a speed limit may keep this type of boat off Winnipesaukee, a speed limit would not prevent the Long Lake accident from happening here.

No factual data exists that a speed limit would prevent this. It can happen on a street with speed limits and it happens more often than on the lake, why would a speed limit on the water prevent it? It wouldn't.

Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change.

Woodsy · 05-02-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

BI...

FINALLY! You hit it on the head... "HIGH SPEED FATALITIES ARE RARE ENOUGH" You & WINNCRABS NEED TO INCREASE the statistical pool to legitimize your argument! The reality is that high speed accidents are EXTREMELY RARE and statistically NON-EXISTANT if you remove ALCOHOL from the equation!

Statistically, every time someone gets behind the wheel of any sort of vehicle, car, truck, snomobile, boat, atv, etc there is a POSSIBILITY of an accident occurring. The PROBABILITY of an accident increases dramatically when the operator has been drinking!

If you dissect the Long Lake accident, All things being equal, if remove ALCOHOL from the equation, the POSSIBILITY of the accident doesnt change, however the PROBABILITY of that accident occurring would be NIL.

There is always the POSSIBILITY of a boating accident on Lake Winnipesaukee, however the PROBABLILITY IS NIL!!

Still waiting for that SOBER High Speed accident.....

Woodsy

Possibility: the state or fact of being possible

Probability: Statistics: the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences.

parrothead · 05-02-2008, 09:14 AM

BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward.
The definition of a wake from wikipedia is "a wake is the region of turbulence around a solid body moving relative to the water, caused by the flow of liquid around the body. The wake leading the body is caused by the compression of the liquid medium by the moving body, and is often called a bow wake when observed preceding a watercraft. As with all wave forms, it spreads outward from the source until its energy is overcome or lost, usually by friction or dispersion."

The engine provides thrust not the wake. As the props spin they provide the thrust to move the boat through the water. The shape of the hull determines the type of wake a boat produces.
Descriptions of different hull types from wikipedia.

* Displacement -the hull is supported exclusively or predominantly by the pressure of water displaced by the hull

* Semi-displacement, or semi-planing - the hull form is capable of developing a moderate amount of dynamic lift, however, most of the vessel's weight is still supported through displacement

* Planing - the Planing Hull form is configured to develop positive dynamic pressure so that its draft decreases with increasing speed.

Performance boats are planing hulls. So as they move through the water their wakes decrease. A boat with a planing hull with "enough" horsepower, will be able to transition faster from a big wake to a small wake. As the power increases the positive dynamic pressure increases lifting the hull out of the water. So performance boats are actually good for shoreline erosion.

Now cruisers on the other hand being semi-displacement are worse so lets get rid of them. Or increase their horsepower so they have enough thrust to push those hulls up on plane.

The only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too?

I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests.

hazelnut · 05-02-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

The REAL joke is this logic. Yeah sure BI we need to increase the statistical sample pool until you are satisfied with the results. What a JOKE. If at first you are not satisfied with the data just twist it skew it increase the sample and then you get what you want? Give me a break. Face it you yourself said it : High speed fatalities are rare enough If that is the case WHY DO WE NEED A LAW?!?!?!?!

Mashugana · 05-02-2008, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward. {snip} he only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too?

I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests.

Your posts have been very well presented Parrothead. Clear and logical information and opinion. You are explaination of wakes was excellent. I don't care much for loud noise either but Concord has laws about how loud your neighbors pipes and boat can be.

I am sure Bear Islander or his crony Islander will find someway to try and discredit your last message. Just as easily as BI did in the Lt. Dunleavy thread when they tossed out your post # 438 (click the post # for the entire post)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parrothead

Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made.

Just because you were there working at the camps on Bear Island BI knows better than you do. Just ask him.

Thank you Parrothead

chipj29 · 05-02-2008, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Long Lake fatalities will be part of this discussion as long as the opposition continues to claim there is no accident data to support speed limits. This claim is an outright lie as we know of 5 fatalities on Winnipesaukee involving speed. Yet they continue to say none exists.

High speed fatalities are rare enough that any particular lake is to small a statistical universe for evaluation. The sample must be increased to have the data show results. Looking at all lakes in a geographic area is perfectly valid. Especially as nobody has come up with a reason why that accident could not have happened on Winnipesaukee. The 150' rule has been quoted as a reason, but that was obviously a joke.

Involving speed. Yes, any moving craft involves speed.
OK...how many of those 5 fatalities were at speeds higher than the proposed limits?

ApS · 05-02-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard..."

That's good, because your Senator will also consider events and laws in other jurisdictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change..."

Start with a 4½ ton boat....

Bear Islander · 05-02-2008, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Involving speed. Yes, any moving craft involves speed.
OK...how many of those 5 fatalities were at speeds higher than the proposed limits?

At least 4.

I don't know what the speed was on the 5th.

Islander · 05-02-2008, 06:15 PM

This is where the faithful jump in with a list of silly reasons why those 4 or 5 deaths don't count.

chipj29 · 05-02-2008, 07:35 PM

Again, I guess I should clarify.
What speeds did those accidents occur at? Were the speeds above or below the proposed limit? And remember..."excessive speed" does not equal anything over 45.

And what was the primary cause of the accidents?

hazelnut · 05-02-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Your posts have been very well presented Parrothead. Clear and logical information and opinion. You are explaination of wakes was excellent. I don't care much for loud noise either but Concord has laws about how loud your neighbors pipes and boat can be.

I am sure Bear Islander or his crony Islander will find someway to try and discredit your last message. Just as easily as BI did in the Lt. Dunleavy thread when they tossed out your post # 438 (click the post # for the entire post)

Just because you were there working at the camps on Bear Island BI knows better than you do. Just ask him.

Thank you Parrothead

So we all know BI has read this post. Waiting for comment. Parrothead seems to have shot some rather huge holes in your logic, yet no comments or admissions have followed???

Bear Islander · 05-02-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

So we all know BI has read this post. Waiting for comment. Parrothead seems to have shot some rather huge holes in your logic, yet no comments or admissions have followed???

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer. Its just the old "bigger boat = less wake", "more horsepower = less wake", "2 + 2 = 5" arguments we get on this forum. They remind me of the "we never went to the moon" arguments you get on the internet. Interesting to read sometimes, but obviously pure baloney.

If you go back and read #432 you will find I told Parrothead the "Camp Directors" new better, not me.

But let me ask Parrothead directly - Who is better able to determine the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps, you, or the camp directors?

Chipj29-

The answer is hubris.

parrothead · 05-02-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for an answer. Its just the old "bigger boat = less wake", "more horsepower = less wake", "2 + 2 = 5" arguments we get on this forum. They remind me of the "we never went to the moon" arguments you get on the internet. Interesting to read sometimes, but obviously pure baloney.

If you go back and read #432 you will find I told Parrothead the "Camp Directors" new better, not me.

But let me ask Parrothead directly - Who is better able to determine the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps, you, or the camp directors?

Chipj29-

The answer is hubris.

Bear Islander, I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on how the difference in hull design effects wakes. I posted my reasons for why I think what I think. I looked up hull designs and read about how water interacts with those designs. And how a wake is produced by a mass moving through liquid, and they didn't jive with your explanation of why performance boats cause more beach erosion than other boats. So I read up on hull design (2) and read up on how a boat motor propels a boat (2) added them together and thought I came up with 4. But I will defer to you because obviously the research I did, and my own personal experiences can't compare to your expertise on the subject. I must be wrong, sorry I doubted your omniscience.
I do believe we landed on the moon, I don't think it was a sound stage or something if that is what you mean.
I also never said anything about the current situation and needs of the Bear Island camps. What I did say in the referenced post is that I was working in the transportation department for both camps when the weekend boating programs were stopped. I also stated the reasons that were discussed and why decisions were made. I have worked and interacted with both camp directors. I can say that their primary concern is the safety of the children and staff that are placed under their responsibility for the summer. And they take that responsibility very seriously. At the time that this decision was made which was quite a few years ago, the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed. If those concerns have changed now, then you are right I can't speak to that, but I can speak to why the decision was made originally.

Airwaves · 05-03-2008, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally pposted by Parrothead
I have worked and interacted with both camp directors. I can say that their primary concern is the safety of the children and staff that are placed under their responsibility for the summer. And they take that responsibility very seriously. At the time that this decision was made which was quite a few years ago, the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed. If those concerns have changed now, then you are right I can't speak to that, but I can speak to why the decision was made originally.

This is the problem with trying to debate Bear Islander. He writes one thing, then denies it, then writes again and denies it again.

Bear Islander at first wrote that high performace boats were chasing camp children off the lake, then he spent how many posts denying that statement when I questioned him? Now he continues to try to fear monger by perpetuating his fear of high performance boats and linking them with summer camps and then tries to discredit you by saying that he, through his alleged conversations with camp directors, knows better than you who was actually there at the time, what the motivation was behind the suspension of whatever on water activities on weekends.

Hell, I'm afraid of heights, so by the logic Bear Islander and his supporters are putting forward, he and they and everyone else should be prohibited from any activity that could possibly take him over not only my property but wherever I happen to be at any given moment because they might fall on me! Heavens!

Bear Islander has yet to tell us where he got the data about a 130 mph boat that is causing fear among family boaters on Lake Winnipesaukee or provide details of these 5 fatalities that he's linked to speed on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Pretty easy to make accusations when you don't back them up.

Bear Islander · 05-03-2008, 03:24 AM

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You made the statement..

"the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed"

Even Woodsy has admitted that a speed limit will lower the number of boats on the lake. HB847 isn't just about speed. A speed limit will make the lake less hectic and crowded. Not a lot, but a little. Perhaps that is why the camp directors support HB847.

Gilligan · 05-03-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

ApS · 05-03-2008, 06:53 AM

Once HB-847 is enacted, I will ask one Lakes Region website to open its doors to new members when the spamming finally ceases there.

Another website will not be "moving" speed limit threads, and still another that will not be "purging" their Boating Forums entirely.

Another, www.tuftonboroforums.com was closed down due to the dreaded Unlimited-Speeds onslaught, and could very well re-open for business.

parrothead · 05-03-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight.

You made the statement..

"the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed"

Even Woodsy has admitted that a speed limit will lower the number of boats on the lake. HB847 isn't just about speed. A speed limit will make the lake less hectic and crowded. Not a lot, but a little. Perhaps that is why the camp directors support HB847.

I understand that your dock is located in a congested section of the lake. I understand that you get tired of hearing boats throttling up in front of your house. I understand that you don't like performance boats, because they are loud. I understand that you would be happier if those boats were no longer on the lake because it would reduce the noise pollution in your area. Those are all valid points to why you don't like performance boats, I get it. But just leave it a that, they don't cause more land erosion than other boats, cruisers do. So why not just stick to the main reasons that you support a speed limit on the lake. To get loud fast boats off the lake. You propose a HP limit to try to get the cruisers off the lake. I can understand that reasoning, and can respect that. I don't think that enactment of a speed limit is going to accomplish as much as you think. Because if speed limits do truly make the lake safer, then wouldn't it be logical that more boaters will feel it is safe to go out increasing the boat traffic. Which in turn causes more wakes, causing more land erosion. I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. And I thank you, because I learned something new this week about how a boat wake, wakes.

Bear Islander · 05-03-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

I understand that your dock is located in a congested section of the lake. I understand that you get tired of hearing boats throttling up in front of your house. I understand that you don't like performance boats, because they are loud. I understand that you would be happier if those boats were no longer on the lake because it would reduce the noise pollution in your area. Those are all valid points to why you don't like performance boats, I get it. But just leave it a that, they don't cause more land erosion than other boats, cruisers do. So why not just stick to the main reasons that you support a speed limit on the lake. To get loud fast boats off the lake. You propose a HP limit to try to get the cruisers off the lake. I can understand that reasoning, and can respect that. I don't think that enactment of a speed limit is going to accomplish as much as you think. Because if speed limits do truly make the lake safer, then wouldn't it be logical that more boaters will feel it is safe to go out increasing the boat traffic. Which in turn causes more wakes, causing more land erosion. I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it. And I thank you, because I learned something new this week about how a boat wake, wakes.

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

Bear Islander · 05-03-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

It's a point I have always agreed with.

Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

2. Ideas that are fantastic in theory, but have ZERO chance of being funded or implemented.

I will go with number 1.

Airwaves · 05-03-2008, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

I think #1 would be more accurately described as "Ideas that are unnecessary and would divert existing equipment, funding and personnel away from current missions on Lake Winnipesaukee."

Islander · 05-03-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud.

I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

jrc · 05-04-2008, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud...

No one thinks BI is truely rich, if he was he would be taking the $20 million astronaut trip with the Russians instead of the $0.2 million dollar bargain trip. He's not lying about pollution and safety, but they are not the primary reasons behind his HB-847 support. They're just attractive after-thoughts stuck on to pretty up the support after all the real reasons came to light and they were unsavory. BI has clearly said he hopes this law will discourage certain boats from using the lake. He says this all the time, it's no secret.

It's not about not liking certain boats, it's about not liking them in his backyard. I'm sure Teddy Kennedy loves windmills, just not where he sails.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

...
I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

Get a camp director on the forum to tell us what he thinks. Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it. I guarantee the camp director will be more concerned about boats traveling too close to his campers than some boat traveling over 45 MPH in the middle of the broads.

winnilaker · 05-04-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Get a camp director on the forum to tell us what he thinks. Forgive me, if I don't take your word for it.

I second that, I would love to hear a single camp director say that the proposed speed limit would allow them to let their kids go out sailing and do stuff they can't now!! I didn't hear a camp director at the Senate public hearing opposing! Just a bunch of people putting words in their mouths, like they are on this forum.

parrothead · 05-04-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

No answers to this post BI. They don't like it when you destroy their preconceived ideas. They like the image of us as selfish snobs that hate noise, speed and a fancy paint job. We are supposed to like wine and Brie and talk with our teeth clenched. That way they can discount what we say and call us liars when we say the problem is pollution or safety. They know they can't win those arguments, so they convince each other its all a fraud.

I suspect they really hate to hear about camp directors supporting limits. Camp directors are obviously experienced, responsible professionals with a lot of lake experience. Its hard to argue away their opinions or pretend they have a personal axe to grind.

Islander why is my post questioning BI's preconceived ideas any different than him questioning mine? Why are his opinions more correct than mine? This is a debate, we are debating an issue that affects the boating community on Winnipesaukee. I questioned a point that was brought up and in fact did research on it before I posted my questions.
I am not against safety, I was responsible for 100's of campers over the years I transported them back and forth from the mainland to Bear Island. In fact for the years that I worked there it was my responsibility to get every staff member and camper to the island. I drove the Bear every change day when the campers left and came to the island. In my opinion education and enforcement are a better way to make the lake safer. If the speed limit is passed I will operate my families boat within the law as I have been doing all along. As for pollution and erosion, I didn't buy BI's opinion on the matter. And apparently he didn't buy mine. So be it, life goes on we agree to disagree.
Where did anyone ever say that they hate the fact camp directors support limits. We are just making our own choices on this issue. I just happen not be making the same choice as you. And since this is a public forum I have just as much right to let my opinion be know as you do. I did, and provided the reasons why.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I second that, I would love to hear a single camp director say that the proposed speed limit would allow them to let their kids go out sailing and do stuff they can't now!! I didn't hear a camp director at the Senate public hearing opposing! Just a bunch of people putting words in their mouths, like they are on this forum.

If I can provide that, will you change your position on HB847?

Anybody?

chipj29 · 05-04-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

You said it BI. When a Marine Patrol boat is in sight to enforce the CURRENT RULES and LAWS, the waves hitting your shore change.
A good example to me that we need more enforcement of current rules rather than adding another rule.

You said it. MP in sight people behave better.
Thanks for making the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It's a point I have always agreed with.

Having a Marine Patrol boat in view everywhere on the lake would have an incredible positive result. However the Marine Patrol can not enforce laws that do not exist. Plus there is no way we are going to see the additional funding that would be required to significantly increase their presence.

Which to do prefer....

1. Ideas that might work and can be implemented with existing equipment, funding and personnel.

2. Ideas that are fantastic in theory, but have ZERO chance of being funded or implemented.

I will go with number 1.

Gilligan stated that now, even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

hazelnut · 05-04-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If I can provide that, will you change your position on HB847?

Anybody?

#1 What does one have to do with the other and
#2 Instead of talking about it, do it. Go ahead.

So if this supposed camp director "FEELS" like the lake would be safer with HB847 we should all just cave in and say, yup BI you were right??

I have to agree with sentiments put forth by Parrothead and a few others. Islander has no original ideas on this forum. All I ever see from Islander is whining when someone "isn't nice" to BI or Islander trashes other peoples opinions and discounts them. And Islander has a problem with OTHER people on this forum, well I have a complaint to lodge against Islander. If your sole purpose on this forum is to come here and say BI is right and everyone else is an idiot, I respectfully request you refrain from doing so. How about being constructive and forming your OWN ideas for once? That'd be refreshing.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Gilligan stated that now, even without a speed limit, the presence of MP slows boats down. Imagine that...they are somehow enforcing a law that doesn't exist.

Sorry, perhaps you are not aware there is a speed limit in front of my cabin.

Lakegeezer · 05-04-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors will say about limits?

My guess is that some camp directors and staff would vote for speed limits. In life after speed limits few, if any, would act differently when making the rules about how campers could use the lake.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

#1 What does one have to do with the other and
#2 Instead of talking about it, do it. Go ahead.

So if this supposed camp director "FEELS" like the lake would be safer with HB847 we should all just cave in and say, yup BI you were right??

I have to agree with sentiments put forth by Parrothead and a few others. Islander has no original ideas on this forum. All I ever see from Islander is whining when someone "isn't nice" to BI or Islander trashes other peoples opinions and discounts them. And Islander has a problem with OTHER people on this forum, well I have a complaint to lodge against Islander. If your sole purpose on this forum is to come here and say BI is right and everyone else is an idiot, I respectfully request you refrain from doing so. How about being constructive and forming your OWN ideas for once? That'd be refreshing.

I want to see if anybody has the guts to put their words on the line. From past experience I think opponents will post they doubt the truth about camp directors and HB847. Then when the evidence is produced they will look for 27 reasons to discount or discredit what the camp directors say.

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors think about limits?

parrothead · 05-04-2008, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm sorry, but you have several of those things wrong. I do not dislike performance boats, their sound, their look, or their speed. Personally I like speed, and the sound of a powerful engine. Some performance boats are beautiful, like the pirate boat that often passes our place.

However I see the lake getting out of control. Water quality is going down, kayakers afraid to go out on the water, my son's camp having to limit lake activities. Something has to change, we are going in the wrong direction.

Do you believe the directors of the camps HATE performance boats? Why do you assume my motives are not the same as theirs?

I spent 15 summers as a waterfont director, camp director or Red Cross Water Safety Instructor. I look at the lake and I see a problem I think I must do something about. However it's easier for you to assume that I just "hate performance boats". Its the easy answer, but wrong and unfair.

I hope you are wrong about the effects of a speed limit. I think it will help, at least a little.

You may think they are nice to look at and all, but not on Winnipesaukee. Through most of the thread about Lt. Dunleavy you stated repeatedly that you didn't think that GFBL boats have a place on Winnipesaukee. You didn't say that GFBL boats not following the laws have no place on Winnipesaukee, you said all GFBL. So following that logic I assume you don't like GFBL boats. Now we should discuss the reason why. How about a GFBL boat whose operator follows the speed limit law if it is passed? Does that boat still not have a place on Winni? Can they enjoy the lake like everyone else, or should they leave? They are doing nothing different than any other boater on the lake.
Do they cause erosion? Any power boat in motion will contribute to erosion. So it can't just be that, because cruisers are much more offenders than any other type of boat.
Pollution? Any internal combustion engine will contribute to pollution, as well as cars, planes, trains, and space ships (sorry had to throw that in). Do GFBL boats produce more pollution than any other boat. Yes! I'll give you that. Some have two or three engines compared to the normal runabouts one so they produce more exhaust. Also performance boats with through hull exhaust do contribute more to noise pollution than boats with through prop exhaust. So GFBL boats do contribute more to pollution. But given the number of GFBL boats on the lake compared to the other types I can't imagine it will make that big of an impact. The increase in boat traffic in general is more of a pollution concern than just GFBL boats.
So I guess hate might be a strong word, but you certainly don't want them on Winni. As for camp directors "hating" performance boats, I really don't care. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you, me, and Camp Directors. And I know you will take this as spin, but you state in the first sentence of your post that you don't dislike GFBL boats, and in the next paragraph you ask why if directors hate performance boats why can't your motives be the same. Well they can't be because you like performance boats and they apparently don't. Not that we have heard from them as to what their opinion is. You stated your opinion as a one time Camp Director, so we do know that at least one Camp Director doesn't like perfomance boats. You.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

..

And I know you will take this as spin, but you state in the first sentence of your post that you don't dislike GFBL boats, and in the next paragraph you ask why if directors hate performance boats why can't your motives be the same. Well they can't be because you like performance boats and they apparently don't. Not that we have heard from them as to what their opinion is. You stated your opinion as a one time Camp Director, so we do know that at least one Camp Director doesn't like perfomance boats. You.

One again you have misread what I posted. I never said camp directors hate performance boats. Perhaps I was being to subtle, but my points was that camp director are in favor of speed limits because it will improve camp life, NOT because they HATE performance boats. I don't believe camp directors hate performance boats and I don't either. We both have the same objective in mind, a better lake.

And we have heard from the camp directors. And yes they do support HB847.

parrothead · 05-04-2008, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I want to see if anybody has the guts to put their words on the line. From past experience I think opponents will post they doubt the truth about camp directors and HB847. Then when the evidence is produced they will look for 27 reasons to discount or discredit what the camp directors say.

So answer the question now please. What do YOU think camp directors think about limits?

I don't want to say they do support them, because I don't know. So everyone can we concede to BI that some Camp Directors support a speed limit? We don't have any evidence to say they do, or don't. BI states that they do, and they might. As for what that has to do with the passing of speed limits on Winni, I don't know. Camps are "consumers" on the lake just like the rest of us. BI started to whole proposition that camps should be important in the decision making process for this bill. I worked for two camps on Winni, and they are two of my favorite places on the planet. I made great friends their, and have wonderful memories of the time spent there. Every time I am on the lake I drive by the camps to see how they are doing. I have volunteered my time to help prepare the camps for opening. The camps have a very special place in my heart. They do good things for kids every summer. I learned a lot while I was there, and hopefully taught some too. But I don't think that they have anymore right to the lake than the rest of us They have designated swimming areas which are already covered by law. They have designated mooring fields which are also protected under current laws. When driving the ski boats, pulling skiers I had to follow the rules like everyone else, no special camp privileges. So while a camp directors opinion should be heard, no more weight should be given it than anyone else. So BI I give you that Camp Directors may support a speed limit. Will it change my mind. No.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by parrothead

I don't want to say they do support them, because I don't know. So everyone can we concede to BI that some Camp Directors support a speed limit? We don't have any evidence to say they do, or don't. BI states that they do, and they might. As for what that has to do with the passing of speed limits on Winni, I don't know. Camps are "consumers" on the lake just like the rest of us. BI started to whole proposition that camps should be important in the decision making process for this bill. I worked for two camps on Winni, and they are two of my favorite places on the planet. I made great friends their, and have wonderful memories of the time spent there. Every time I am on the lake I drive by the camps to see how they are doing. I have volunteered my time to help prepare the camps for opening. The camps have a very special place in my heart. They do good things for kids every summer. I learned a lot while I was there, and hopefully taught some too. But I don't think that they have anymore right to the lake than the rest of us They have designated swimming areas which are already covered by law. They have designated mooring fields which are also protected under current laws. When driving the ski boats, pulling skiers I had to follow the rules like everyone else, no special camp privileges. So while a camp directors opinion should be heard, no more weight should be given it than anyone else. So BI I give you that Camp Directors may support a speed limit. Will it change my mind. No.

I disagree. I think children's camps deserve and require special consideration. Just like our schools do. They are in fact a different type of school.

Several HB847 opponents on this forum have spoken out in favor of "camp zones" around the lakes children's camps. I joint them in that worthy idea. I wish you did as well.

VtSteve · 05-04-2008, 01:23 PM

I seem to remember, which is tougher after all these years, that the camp boats themselves used to make me slow down so I wouldn't get jarred. Those big hulls made for some waves.

I think the wave issue and erosion issue ought to be discarded. I'll take the wake from a 42 Fountain anyday over a 32' Carver or whatever the barge of choice is nowadays.

Islander · 05-04-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I seem to remember, which is tougher after all these years, that the camp boats themselves used to make me slow down so I wouldn't get jarred. Those big hulls made for some waves.

I think the wave issue and erosion issue ought to be discarded. I'll take the wake from a 42 Fountain any day over a 32' Carver or whatever the barge of choice is nowadays.

I think most HB847 opponents would like to discard the erosion and pollution arguments. However they are central to HB847.

How about we get ride of the Fountain and the Carver and every other boat that belongs on larger bodies of water.

I think most people like special consideration for the camps. If parrothead really worked at the camps I think he would as well.

parrothead · 05-04-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I disagree. I think children's camps deserve and require special consideration. Just like our schools do. They are in fact a different type of school.

Several HB847 opponents on this forum have spoken out in favor of "camp zones" around the lakes children's camps. I joint them in that worthy idea. I wish you did as well.

I support a camp zone, and before you say what?? Let me explain. Any camp has the right to petition for a NWZ to be placed around their waterfront. Just like any other group is able. But the other residents in the area that should not have their use of the lake impeded just because they happen to live next to a camp. The first scenario that came to mind was where water skiing is taught at Camp Lawrence. This area is a somewhat protected area between Mark Island and Bear. Now if a camp zone is instituted would water skiing still be allowed in this area? Would the only boat that would be allowed to go above headway speed be the camp ski boat? Or would there be a zone set aside that only the camp boats could enter and no one else? I don't want the camps to be resented because they infringe on everyone elses use of a public resource. Now a no wake zone extending out from the swim areas 300 feet and just encompasses the area right in front of the swim area would impact the general public less. I have been to a few other camps by boat and can remember that their swim areas could support NWZs. Sandy Island camp, Camp Belknap, North Woods, are the first ones that come to mind. There is room for the general public to avoid the no wake zones, and not be impacted by them. The extra distance would provide a zone for the camp canoes, and sail boats to move around in. Also maybe help with wave size by the time it reaches the swim instruction area. But it would be up to the camps to petition the state and provide reasons why this no wake zone is needed, just like everyone else. Being that it is a petition the people in the area are given the choice to support it or not, and to raise any concerns in a public forum. The camps could do that now without any new laws or regulations.

chipj29 · 05-04-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, perhaps you are not aware there is a speed limit in front of my cabin.

Sorry, I didn't realize he was talking about a No Wake Zone in front of your house. Unless boaters go through that area at higher speeds, and only slow down when MP is present...which I doubt is the case.

VtSteve · 05-04-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

I think most HB847 opponents would like to discard the erosion and pollution arguments. However they are central to HB847.

How about we get ride of the Fountain and the Carver and every other boat that belongs on larger bodies of water.

I think most people like special consideration for the camps. If parrothead really worked at the camps I think he would as well.

Had to laugh at the big boat issue, my dad use to shake his fist at the Thronkers way back in the 70's.

I have no problem with camp areas being protected someway.

The issue I was trying to address is the wake and erosion issue, which you seem to think is "central" to the law. I have to say, anyone that's been on a lake for more than a day has to realize the wakes coming from planing hulls gets bigger as they go slower. As for the cruisers, they're just BIG all the time.

I'll agree that there are several issues here, and very few are addressed by the speed limit law. The only by product of this law is that boats that can do 80, mph and all that, might just go elsewhere. If that's the intended result, people should just say so.

Otherwise, I'd recommend that everyone that is responsible, and hates this type of law, do the following.

Every Saturday afternoon, every boater, regardless of the size of boat, throttle up to around 12mph to 18 mph, whatever produces the largest wake before planing occurs. Do that every Saturday for a couple of hours. See what happens then.

If you want to, and are truly dedicated, do it at night too.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chipj29

Sorry, I didn't realize he was talking about a No Wake Zone in front of your house. Unless boaters go through that area at higher speeds, and only slow down when MP is present...which I doubt is the case.

Boats go through the NWZ at high speed, full speed , ludicrous speed, whatever you can imagine.

Most boats go reasonably slow, however that speed drops incredibly when the MP are around. The most dramatic difference, laughable really, is how the NWZ line moves. When a patrol boat is around the NWZ begins and ends 200' to 400' OUTSIDE the NWZ. When the patrol in not around many boats bring back the throttle as they pass the marker.

Several times a day boats go through full speed, even at night. Now and then they have to replace the marker after it gets hit at night.

The most common violator is a very large cruise boat that passes more than once a day. I will not guess at its speed, but I have seen boats being overtaken by it have to go full throttle, in the NWZ, to get out of its way.

chipj29 · 05-04-2008, 03:12 PM

Well that sucks that people don't obey the NWZ. And I mean that seriously. However, it is great that people slow down when MP is around to enforce the current law.

Airwaves · 05-04-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Boats go through the NWZ at high speed, full speed , ludicrous speed, whatever you can imagine.

Most boats go reasonably slow, however that speed drops incredibly when the MP are around. The most dramatic difference, laughable really, is how the NWZ line moves. When a patrol boat is around the NWZ begins and ends 200' to 400' OUTSIDE the NWZ. When the patrol in not around many boats bring back the throttle as they pass the marker.

Several times a day boats go through full speed, even at night. Now and then they have to replace the marker after it gets hit at night.

The most common violator is a very large cruise boat that passes more than once a day. I will not guess at its speed, but I have seen boats being overtaken by it have to go full throttle, in the NWZ, to get out of its way.

Just a thought, but it that's a problem out in front of your place, and since I beleive you already have a webcamera in operation, why not point it in a direction that whould catch the violation on the web, and at an angle that would show the violator's bow number and/or boat name. I'd be willing to be that if you had these violations on tape and the MP could track them down a visit by a law enforcement officer would help your situation.

winnilaker · 05-04-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Several HB847 opponents on this forum have spoken out in favor of "camp zones" around the lakes children's camps. I joint them in that worthy idea.

I would support camp zones.

VtSteve · 05-04-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Boats go through the NWZ at high speed, full speed , ludicrous speed, whatever you can imagine.

Most boats go reasonably slow, however that speed drops incredibly when the MP are around. The most dramatic difference, laughable really, is how the NWZ line moves. When a patrol boat is around the NWZ begins and ends 200' to 400' OUTSIDE the NWZ. When the patrol in not around many boats bring back the throttle as they pass the marker.

Several times a day boats go through full speed, even at night. Now and then they have to replace the marker after it gets hit at night.

The most common violator is a very large cruise boat that passes more than once a day. I will not guess at its speed, but I have seen boats being overtaken by it have to go full throttle, in the NWZ, to get out of its way.

You must reflect on this BI. I am also appalled to hear this, probably more than you can imagine. Before I even comment on the ramifications, you MUST reflect on your positions and responses in this forum. Just re-read what you've said, and I think you'll find that your responses have been irrational, emotional, and resulting in no real solution. I'd be on your side on this one BI, believe me I am.

Bear Islander · 05-04-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

You must reflect on this BI. I am also appalled to hear this, probably more than you can imagine. Before I even comment on the ramifications, you MUST reflect on your positions and responses in this forum. Just re-read what you've said, and I think you'll find that your responses have been irrational, emotional, and resulting in no real solution. I'd be on your side on this one BI, believe me I am.

I'm surprised you people are surprised. I suppose I have seen it for so many years it doesn't surprise me anymore. PWCs go through full speed the most, we don't even blink when they do it. I'm sure some have no idea it's a NWZ. One beautiful Cigarette (a real one) would go through at about 90. I thought maybe he was clueless. Then I found out he was from Cooks Point. That is within sight, so he must have known about the NWZ.

We had a neighbor that would throw tennis ball at them, but he is gone now.

A have a few videos but you can't read bow numbers from that distance. I have been thinking of setting a camera up with motion detection. Take a picture of every boat that goes through.

EricP · 05-04-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm surprised you people are surprised. I suppose I have seen it for so many years it doesn't surprise me anymore. PWCs go through full speed the most, we don't even blink when they do it. I'm sure some have no idea it's a NWZ. One beautiful Cigarette (a real one) would go through at about 90. I thought maybe he was clueless. Then I found out he was from Cooks Point. That is within sight, so he must have known about the NWZ.

We had a neighbor that would throw tennis ball at them, but he is gone now.

A have a few videos but you can't read bow numbers from that distance. I have been thinking of setting a camera up with motion detection. Take a picture of every boat that goes through.

I've seen boats buzz through there as well as we idle through on our SeaDoos. Idiots will be idiots, probably the same people that pass you in the breakdown lane (not the one on 93 that allows travel). Great spot for MP in an unmarked boat.

Silver Duck · 05-04-2008, 09:37 PM

BI

Why don't you and your neighbors petition to have the NWZ extended? I've always felt that it is too small, and adjust my behavior accordingly. I'd even be happy to show up at a hearing and speak in favor of expanding the NWZ!

Silver Duck

VtSteve · 05-04-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm surprised you people are surprised. I suppose I have seen it for so many years it doesn't surprise me anymore. PWCs go through full speed the most, we don't even blink when they do it. I'm sure some have no idea it's a NWZ. One beautiful Cigarette (a real one) would go through at about 90. I thought maybe he was clueless. Then I found out he was from Cooks Point. That is within sight, so he must have known about the NWZ.

We had a neighbor that would throw tennis ball at them, but he is gone now.

A have a few videos but you can't read bow numbers from that distance. I have been thinking of setting a camera up with motion detection. Take a picture of every boat that goes through.

So. What does this have to do with the speed limit again?

They are breaking the speed limit in a NWZ for chrisakes. Does that mean a speed limit of 45 they will do 125mph ?

Get some common sense already, The issue is enforcement, not more laws.

Resident 2B · 05-04-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

BI

Why don't you and your neighbors petition to have the NWZ extended? I've always felt that it is too small, and adjust my behavior accordingly. I'd even be happy to show up at a hearing and speak in favor of expanding the NWZ!

Silver Duck

Although I have not, in the past, agreed with BI in most of his positions, I acompletely agree with Silver Duck and I would completely support an extension of the No-Wake zone in that area of the lake. To me, this extension is in the best interest of the overall lake environment. The wakes of all boats must be considered when establishing and expandig No Wake Zones. In this case, the overall lake environment would be best served by expanding this No Wake Zone. We must be fair in these situations!

R2B

Chris Craft · 05-05-2008, 07:28 AM

The reality of the situation is that if the speed boats were quite we would not be having this conversation now. I have talked to a few legislatures and they all say that is the main reason for the complaining. Most MP's will tell you that speed boats are not a safty concern. Most people that drive them have a very large amount of time under their belts. That is not to say that they are never involved in accidents but they are involved in very few. The noise is what bothers most people.

The Long Lake Accident we still do not know much about. They have kept the details of that accident very hush hush. We still do not know if Ray Trotts boat (the smaller one) had his lights on or not. There are a lot of other details that we still do not know about. I am sure it will all come out in the trial. Then we can talk about that accident with some facts.

hazelnut · 05-05-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

The reality of the situation is that if the speed boats were quite we would not be having this conversation now. I have talked to a few legislatures and they all say that is the main reason for the complaining. Most MP's will tell you that speed boats are not a safty concern. Most people that drive them have a very large amount of time under their belts. That is not to say that they are never involved in accidents but they are involved in very few. The noise is what bothers most people.

The Long Lake Accident we still do not know much about. They have kept the details of that accident very hush hush. We still do not know if Ray Trotts boat (the smaller one) had his lights on or not. There are a lot of other details that we still do not know about. I am sure it will all come out in the trial. Then we can talk about that accident with some facts.

I suspected that to be the truth. As an opponent to the speed limit I can honestly say that SOME not all of the owners of these GFBL boats are their own worst enemies in all this. If everyone had complied with noise ordinances and kept a low profile then we wouldn't even be talking about speed limits. It isn't really in their nature for most of these owners who are trying to get everyone to look at them, so they go bigger louder brighter. I really have no problem with the bigger, brighter, as I love to look at these boats. It's the louder I have the problem with. When I have to suspend my conversation until a boat goes by that's obnoxious.

Bear Islander · 05-05-2008, 10:44 AM

I'm not sure increasing the size of the NWZ will make any difference. It's already about three times as large as the law allows. And it isn't about wake its about slowing people down in a crowded area. The biggest advantage of the NWZ is it keeps many boats away. Before the NWZ was enacted that was the most scary place on the lake. Worse than Eagle island was.

In general I don't think laws that require intense enforcement are the best answer. The NWZ solved 99% of the problems it was intended to solve. If the MP could show up more often and make it 99.9% that would be great, it's not likely to happen however.

KonaChick · 05-05-2008, 10:48 AM

I'd say a 99% success rate is pretty good....

brk-lnt · 05-05-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In general I don't think laws that require intense enforcement are the best answer.

An ironic quote considering your support of the speed limits.

Chris Craft · 05-05-2008, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I suspected that to be the truth. As an opponent to the speed limit I can honestly say that SOME not all of the owners of these GFBL boats are their own worst enemies in all this. If everyone had complied with noise ordinances and kept a low profile then we wouldn't even be talking about speed limits. It isn't really in their nature for most of these owners who are trying to get everyone to look at them, so they go bigger louder brighter. I really have no problem with the bigger, brighter, as I love to look at these boats. It's the louder I have the problem with. When I have to suspend my conversation until a boat goes by that's obnoxious.

I agree. So why not go after tighter noise ordinences? Winni does have some of the stricktest that I am aware of but is it enforced? I really have no idea but I guess not? Muffling is getting better on speed boats. If you put "donki dicks" (sorry but that is what they are called) it really muffles the sound at wide open and idle noise drops off big time. This solution does not loose much power at all. This is something that I could be more likely to get behind..... in the interest of compromise.

Bear Islander · 05-05-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

An ironic quote considering your support of the speed limits.

A speed limit was not my first choice, a horsepower limit is infinitely easier to enforce.

However a speed limit is self enforcing to a degree. Having a speed limit sets a standard. It draws a line and tells both visitors and regulars what the standard of behavior is. A boater going 60 mph will know they are breaking the law.

I believe most people are law abiding and will obey the speed limit. I'm sure many will go a little over the limit and get away with it. But if you go to far over the limit, to many times, you will end up talking to the Marine Patrol. If they get a ticket or if it holds up in court will not make much difference.

If there is a scofflaw or two out there that ignores the law and repeatedly gets stopped for speeding, I'm sure they will eventually end up standing in front of a judge having an unpleasant conversation.

It's like our NWZ, 99% do it the right way. We need to keep our eyes open for that other 1%, but that is true everywhere, and will never change.

Lakegeezer · 05-05-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If there is a scofflaw or two out there that ignores the law and repeatedly gets stopped for speeding, I'm sure they will eventually end up standing in front of a judge having an unpleasant conversation.

With no new law, there will be no reason for people to scoff at it. Most experienced boaters believe the Coast Guard and existing rules are effective in defining proper speed for conditions. A purchased, feel-good speed limit law deserves to be scoffed at.

hazelnut · 05-05-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure increasing the size of the NWZ will make any difference. It's already about three times as large as the law allows. And it isn't about wake its about slowing people down in a crowded area. The biggest advantage of the NWZ is it keeps many boats away. Before the NWZ was enacted that was the most scary place on the lake. Worse than Eagle island was.

In general I don't think laws that require intense enforcement are the best answer. The NWZ solved 99% of the problems it was intended to solve. If the MP could show up more often and make it 99.9% that would be great, it's not likely to happen however.

I do recall that area being very sketchy. It seems so long ago that I forgot just how bad it was. The problem is that there are boats coming from so many different directions into what seems like a funnel. Nobody wanted to give way. Of course I like to believe that it was a two pronged attack. The enacting of the NWZ coupled with the Certification of boaters seems to have had a pretty positive affect on that area as well as the rest of the lake. I'd like to see after this year where we stand in terms of full compliance with the certificates. It'll probably be a couple years before we see the full impact though as some people will still be driving without them until they are caught.

VtSteve · 05-05-2008, 03:07 PM

It's so much easier to get a consensus of opinion when the facts and the truth come out. If the intention of most people had been to,

1) Address the noise issue

2) Address the boaters speeding though congested areas

then,

I think you'd have had most people on board, assisting in the process. Instead of coming up with crap like wakes and erosion, not to mention malarkey about accidents and speed, we might all be talking about a new bill to add to the marine patrol's budget to enforce existing laws, and also expanding NWZ. This is how things work.

I'm certain that the lake would be a far better place if the law is not passed, and everyone proceeds along those lines. Now that "those" boat owners know what could happen, perhaps a little self-policing would be in order. It's rather obvious from the debates where the most problems are, and clearly obvious where the most upset people are.

In this day and age, having a marine patrol segment dedicated to certain trouble spots on a rotating basis is very doable.

Bear Islander · 05-05-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It's so much easier to get a consensus of opinion when the facts and the truth come out. If the intention of most people had been to,

1) Address the noise issue

2) Address the boaters speeding though congested areas

then,

I think you'd have had most people on board, assisting in the process. Instead of coming up with crap like wakes and erosion, not to mention malarkey about accidents and speed, we might all be talking about a new bill to add to the marine patrol's budget to enforce existing laws, and also expanding NWZ. This is how things work.

I'm certain that the lake would be a far better place if the law is not passed, and everyone proceeds along those lines. Now that "those" boat owners know what could happen, perhaps a little self-policing would be in order. It's rather obvious from the debates where the most problems are, and clearly obvious where the most upset people are.

In this day and age, having a marine patrol segment dedicated to certain trouble spots on a rotating basis is very doable.

Except that those are not the important issues.

Noise is not a prime concern, I would list it around number 8 or lower. Speeding through congested areas is not the issue. The Bear Island NWZ has been in place for about 15 years, with reasonable compliance.

hazelnut · 05-05-2008, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Except that those are not the important issues.

Noise is not a prime concern, I would list it around number 8 or lower. Speeding through congested areas is not the issue. The Bear Island NWZ has been in place for about 15 years, with reasonable compliance.

What do you mean by this? NWZ's or any congested areas?

ITD · 05-05-2008, 05:55 PM

Dear Senators:

Once again we are seeing posts about how this is not a concern or that is not a concern. Another favorite is the "we tried to compromise", or "I would rather have had a horsepower limit", or fast boats make wakes that kill loons, or an accident a few years ago caused by a drunk not looking where he was going somehow magically would have been prevented by a speed limit.

The bottom line: A SPEED LIMIT WILL SOLVE NOTHING, a speed limit will cause enforcement officers to move to the Broads looking for speeders who don't exist or are few and far between taking them away from much more productive public safety oriented tasks.

Why????

So a few people on an island (or islands) can put the first notch in their belt in their effort to remove boats from the lake. Don't fall for it Senators, your job, is to see through frenzies stirred up by rabble-rousers and do the right thing. The right thing here is to defeat this bill.

Silver Duck · 05-05-2008, 07:53 PM

BI

There's a legal limit to the size of an NWZ? How does that work?

Silver Duck

Bear Islander · 05-05-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

BI

There's a legal limit to the size of an NWZ? How does that work?

Silver Duck

The Bear Island NWZ is supposed to extend 150' north and south from the mail dock. In reality it extends about 400' south and 800' north of the mail dock.

If the northern part didn't extend 800' then it wouldn't make it to Pine Island, and boats could just drive around the NWZ.

I don't know how they screwed this up but 150' would never work. I wonder if they write it up as being small so they don't get a lot of resistance at the hearing.

Cal · 05-05-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The Bear Island NWZ is supposed to extend 150' north and south from the mail dock. In reality it extends about 400' south and 800' north of the mail dock.

If the northern part didn't extend 800' then it wouldn't make it to Pine Island, and boats could just drive around the NWZ.

I don't know how they screwed this up but 150' would never work. I wonder if they write it up as being small so they don't get a lot of resistance at the hearing.

Gee maybe we should see about getting this corrected if it's unlawful

hazelnut · 05-05-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The few that own these expensive, highly polluting, global warming, gas hogs, fly around the lake at speeds up to 130 mph scaring the living hell out of family boaters. They have no concept of how many small boaters, including children's campers, they are keeping off of the water.

Here is the direct quote in question. Don't you think any reasonable person would deduce from this comment that you are saying that there are boats flying around the lake, speeding, some of them doing 130mph, terrorizing families.

Your rebuttal is hysterical by the way BI. Bill Clinton could take lessons. "I did not have relations with that woman." Actually it's more like Clemens, we must have all misremembered your post.

Bear Islander · 05-05-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Here is the direct quote in question. Don't you think any reasonable person would deduce from this comment that you are saying that there are boats flying around the lake, speeding, some of them doing 130mph, terrorizing families.

Your rebuttal is hysterical by the way BI. Bill Clinton could take lessons. "I did not have relations with that woman." Actually it's more like Clemens, we must have all misremembered your post.

Except my statement is accurate.

Funny perhaps, but 100% accurate.

luckypete · 05-05-2008, 09:51 PM

Greetings all,

OK... now I want everyone to take a deep breath...go ahead...I'll wait.....now, don't you feel better? No, ok let's try another one....that's good....breathe in...hold it....slow exhale....nice. There, now that the blood pressure is under control, I have a proposal. It may sound crazy at first, but Bear with me. (how did you like the pun?)

There's a little lake just north of Winni that goes by the name of Squam. I understand that there are certain "restrictions" on that body of water which are appealing to some and not so appealing to others. Whether it's size restrictions on boats, conditional land use permits or whatever, it sounds like a nice quiet, slow, safe and serene body of water. No GFBL's (what does that stand for by the way?), no kayakers in immediate danger of being....of being...I don't know, what are kayakers in immediate danger of again? The loons up there, I am told, are much more...what's the word?... Loonish than they are on Winni! And yes, whether you believe it or not, the little children up there are well above average. Doesn't it sound like a dream? Hmmm...come on, I know some of you feel that way right? Well here's my idea.

Leave! If other people are having too much fun, or being silly or enjoying themselves in a way that you find unpalatable, just remove yourself from that environment. It's simple really. Put up the old For Sale sign, put your stuff in a boat and go! Just head north, buy a place on Squam or Rust Pond or Mirror lake or Beach Pond or wherever. All of these places are beautiful and maybe more to your liking. No....are you sure? I'm serious, I'll think you'll be happier there. Are you sure you really want to stay on the big lake? I mean, when it gets really windy, the waves can get scary out there. Perhaps something a little less intimidating would be more to your liking.

Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

Islander · 05-05-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckypete

Greetings all,

OK... now I want everyone to take a deep breath...go ahead...I'll wait.....now, don't you feel better? No, ok let's try another one....that's good....breathe in...hold it....slow exhale....nice. There, now that the blood pressure is under control, I have a proposal. It may sound crazy at first, but Bear with me. (how did you like the pun?)

There's a little lake just north of Winni that goes by the name of Squam. I understand that there are certain "restrictions" on that body of water which are appealing to some and not so appealing to others. Whether it's size restrictions on boats, conditional land use permits or whatever, it sounds like a nice quiet, slow, safe and serene body of water. No GFBL's (what does that stand for by the way?), no kayakers in immediate danger of being....of being...I don't know, what are kayakers in immediate danger of again? The loons up there, I am told, are much more...what's the word?... Loonish than they are on Winni! And yes, whether you believe it or not, the little children up there are well above average. Doesn't it sound like a dream? Hmmm...come on, I know some of you feel that way right? Well here's my idea.

Leave! If other people are having too much fun, or being silly or enjoying themselves in a way that you find unpalatable, just remove yourself from that environment. It's simple really. Put up the old For Sale sign, put your stuff in a boat and go! Just head north, buy a place on Squam or Rust Pond or Mirror lake or Beach Pond or wherever. All of these places are beautiful and maybe more to your liking. No....are you sure? I'm serious, I'll think you'll be happier there. Are you sure you really want to stay on the big lake? I mean, when it gets really windy, the waves can get scary out there. Perhaps something a little less intimidating would be more to your liking.

Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

Pete you are so right. Squam is such a wonderful place. However it seems you don't know the good news, we are soon to have those "restrictions" right here on Winnipesaukee. So there is no need to move! It will be wonderful! Aren't we Lucky Pete?

Evenstar · 05-05-2008, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luckypete

Greetings all,
Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

I happen to enjoy both lakes - and as a NH resident, I believe I have the legal right to do so. New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states in part: “. . . it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.”

I have just as much right to safely kayak on Winni as I do on Squam, but it has been my experience that I am less safe on Winni, due mostly to the high speeds of some powerboats. Whether you or others believe it or not, some people on Winni operated their powerboats at speeds that are beyond their ability to spot smaller boats (like kayaks) in time. My 150 foot zone has been violated by some of these people - not intentially, but just because they were traveling too fast.

99% of the folks on Winni are not operating their boats in a safe manner, at least not 100% of the time.

People on this forum keep claiming that I am exaggerating, or that I can't tell when a boat is going faster then 45mph, or that I can't judge distances. Yet no one on this forum has had the guts to borrow a kayak and go out on the main lake with me.

If you guys would just experience the lake from my perspective once, perhaps you would finally believe me. And you might even agree that perhaps we do need a speed limit. The truth is that it is not as safe on Winni as you think - at least not for paddlers.

Airwaves · 05-05-2008, 11:28 PM

Hey Islander! Here are two of my favorite restrictions on Squam! This is what happens when common sense lawmaking is allowed to be replaced by fear mongering and the desire by a few landowners to keep "undesirables" away!

Quote:

Squam Lake - Holderness/Ashland
RSA 270:74, IV - Skicraft banned 10/01/88.
RSA 270:77 - No person shall, at any time, place in, on, use or operate any houseboat, on Squam Lake.

270:73 Definitions.
V. "Ski craft'' means any motorized watercraft or private boat which is less than 13 feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of 20 miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person while in operation. The term includes a jet ski, surf ski, fun ski, or other similar device. "Ski craft'' does not include any watercraft or boat with twin hulls and which is greater than 11 feet long, greater than 5 feet wide, and powered by an outboard motor

270-A:1 Definitions.
II. "Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature.

Seaplane Pilot · 05-06-2008, 03:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Islander

Pete you are so right. Squam is such a wonderful place. However it seems you don't know the good news, we are soon to have those "restrictions" right here on Winnipesaukee. So there is no need to move! It will be wonderful! Aren't we Lucky Pete?

Yeah, right. We'll also see Indians (sorry - Native Americans) traveling to the Weirs in their birch bark canoes, setting up fishing nets. If you look up in the sky, you might even see a pig fly by. Ain't gonna happen in this lifetime or ever.

VtSteve · 05-06-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I'm not sure increasing the size of the NWZ will make any difference. It's already about three times as large as the law allows. And it isn't about wake its about slowing people down in a crowded area. The biggest advantage of the NWZ is it keeps many boats away. Before the NWZ was enacted that was the most scary place on the lake. Worse than Eagle island was.

In general I don't think laws that require intense enforcement are the best answer. The NWZ solved 99% of the problems it was intended to solve. If the MP could show up more often and make it 99.9% that would be great, it's not likely to happen however.

Maybe if all of the speed limit proponents had put their time and energy into pushing for a solution to increased enforcement, something would have been done. After all these years, you May get the speed limit.

Seems pretty darn stupid to me given your comments about lack of enforcement for the speed limit areas already in place. Perhaps for the next 20 years a new thread can be in place for Why No Speed Limit Enforcement?

I remember traveling that area frequently years ago. It was pretty congested then. We usually slowed down in that area, primarily due to congestion and waves, but also because it narrows out and is close to land.

Gilligan · 05-06-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have just as much right to safely kayak on Winni as I do on Squam, but it has been my experience that I am less safe on Winni, due mostly to the high speeds of some powerboats. Whether you or others believe it or not, some people on Winni operated their powerboats at speeds that are beyond their ability to spot smaller boats (like kayaks) in time. My 150 foot zone has been violated by some of these people - not intentially, but just because they were traveling too fast.

99% of the folks on Winni are not operating their boats in a safe manner, at least not 100% of the time.

Where is my calculator. Less than 100% of the time there are 99% of boaters that operate unsafely. I'll have to work on that to fully comprehend the implications.

I suggest you contact Marine Patrol. One of them on a Sea Doo following you from a distance could bag all those 150' violators. You seem to be a magnet for them. The word will spread quickly and those that still break the law will face the consequences while you feel safer. Of course you could help your situation by making yourself more visible.

Evenstar, I seem to remember that someone did offer to go kayak with you this coming season.

Chris Craft · 05-06-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I happen to enjoy both lakes - and as a NH resident, I believe I have the legal right to do so. New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states in part: “. . . it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.”

I have just as much right to safely kayak on Winni as I do on Squam, but it has been my experience that I am less safe on Winni, due mostly to the high speeds of some powerboats. Whether you or others believe it or not, some people on Winni operated their powerboats at speeds that are beyond their ability to spot smaller boats (like kayaks) in time. My 150 foot zone has been violated by some of these people - not intentially, but just because they were traveling too fast.

99% of the folks on Winni are not operating their boats in a safe manner, at least not 100% of the time.

People on this forum keep claiming that I am exaggerating, or that I can't tell when a boat is going faster then 45mph, or that I can't judge distances. Yet no one on this forum has had the guts to borrow a kayak and go out on the main lake with me.

If you guys would just experience the lake from my perspective once, perhaps you would finally believe me. And you might even agree that perhaps we do need a speed limit. The truth is that it is not as safe on Winni as you think - at least not for paddlers.

Tell ya what, you take a ride with me in a speed boat and I will go for a paddle with you. Would have to work out the date as I am building a house but I have a few friends on the lake that I am sure we can get you a ride. If you have a 2nd yak then I would go for a paddle with you. Who knows maybe you will change my opinion, maybe I will change yours. If not we will have a fun day.

Evenstar · 05-07-2008, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

Where is my calculator. Less than 100% of the time there are 99% of boaters that operate unsafely. I'll have to work on that to fully comprehend the implications.

This isn't rocket science. My point was that a lot more than 1% of the boaters on Winni are operating unsafely - and few of those who do generally operate safely, do so 100% of the time.

Quote:

I suggest you contact Marine Patrol. One of them on a Sea Doo following you from a distance could bag all those 150' violators. You seem to be a magnet for them. The word will spread quickly and those that still break the law will face the consequences while you feel safer. Of course you could help your situation by making yourself more visible.

Why is it that you feel the need to pick my posts apart, without fully reading them? I've posted over and over in this forum that I am not the only paddler who has had close calls with high-speed power boats. I've also posted over and over - and even used large red text - that my kayak and I are very visible. The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention - or they are traveling faster than their ability.

Quote:

Evenstar, I seem to remember that someone did offer to go kayak with you this coming season.

Let me make it easy for you. In the "Lt. Dunleavy" thread, Mee-n-Mac made an off-handed joke that "we go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have." I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348, where I wrote, "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline."

He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does. I made this a standing offer a couple of years ago - and my offer still stands, but so far no one on this forum has had the guts to actually go with me on the main lake in a kayak. And yet you guys call me "afraid".

hazelnut · 05-07-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This isn't rocket science. My point was that a lot more than 1% of the boaters on Winni are operating unsafely - and few of those who do generally operate safely, do so 100% of the time.
Why is it that you feel the need to pick my posts apart, without fully reading them? I've posted over and over in this forum that I am not the only paddler who has had close calls with high-speed power boats. I've also posted over and over - and even used large red text - that my kayak and I are very visible. The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention - or they are traveling faster than their ability.
Let me make it easy for you. In the "Lt. Dunleavy" thread, Mee-n-Mac made an off-handed joke that "we go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have." I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348, where I wrote, "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline."
He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does. I made this a standing offer a couple of years ago - and my offer still stands, but so far no one on this forum has had the guts to actually go with me on the main lake in a kayak. And yet you guys call me "afraid".

I'm sorry to say this but the majority of people here probably think that you're not that smart about your recreation choices. While you are at it why not go for a swim across the broads. I just don't see this as a speed limit issue. I think you nailed it on the head when you said: "The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention."
A sped limit won't change that. So as far as I see it you are deliberately putting yourself in harms way. I believe that the operators of every vessel are required to keep a sharp lookout but that is not the case. I know you feel passionately about your right to paddle across the broads but even the swimmers do something to draw attention to themselves. Most "Broads" swimmers swim off a boat and don't venture more than a few feet from it. Others who have done the whole length of the lake usually have an entourage of support boats with them. You Kayaking across the broads isn't much different IMO. I think most Marine Patrol officers would caution against it, not because of speed, but because of traffic and inattentive boaters. However, being that it is not illegal they couldn't stop you. I bet if you asked them they would prefer it if you didn't do it. A speed limit won't change their mind. With that said why couldn't you make special arrangements with a chase boat when you decide to take on this risky endeavor. Any way you slice it speed limit or no speed limit you are taking a large risk when you kayak across the equivalent of I-93 on lake winni.

VtSteve · 05-07-2008, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This isn't rocket science. My point was that a lot more than 1% of the boaters on Winni are operating unsafely - and few of those who do generally operate safely, do so 100% of the time.

Why is it that you feel the need to pick my posts apart, without fully reading them? I've posted over and over in this forum that I am not the only paddler who has had close calls with high-speed power boats. I've also posted over and over - and even used large red text - that my kayak and I are very visible. The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention - or they are traveling faster than their ability.

Let me make it easy for you. In the "Lt. Dunleavy" thread, Mee-n-Mac made an off-handed joke that "we go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have." I replied to Mee-n-Mac in the very next post - #348, where I wrote, "I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline."

He never responded top my offer - nor has anyone else. Perhaps it was the fact that I do not hug the shoreline like he does. I made this a standing offer a couple of years ago - and my offer still stands, but so far no one on this forum has had the guts to actually go with me on the main lake in a kayak. And yet you guys call me "afraid".

I think that about 99.657% of boaters realize that it's just not a prudent thing to do in the Main Lake. Perhaps we need to enact some rules and regulations, for safety's sake of course

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...kayaking/7360/

Rescuers cite need to regulate kayaking

Published: April 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM

WASHINGTON, April 30 (UPI) -- The growing popularity of kayaking in the United States is prompting rescue organizations to call for laws requiring kayakers to take boating safety courses.

The head of the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators says an explosion in the number of kayakers along the nation's waterways has become a "huge drain" on rescue teams, USA Today reported Wednesday.

"Paddling represents our greatest risk in the recreational boating community," says John Fetterman, who is also a member of the Maine Marine Patrol.

Fetterman told USA Today he supports legislation to require kayakers to take courses that teach them the basics of water safety.

No government agency tracks the number of kayak-related rescues nationally each year but the U.S. Coast Guard does track boating fatalities. Twenty-seven people died kayaking in 2006, the most recent year for which numbers are available, USA Today says.

Experts says one of the reasons for the sport's popularity is that kayaks are relatively inexpensive and can be hauled and used with ease."

Evenstar · 05-07-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Tell ya what, you take a ride with me in a speed boat and I will go for a paddle with you. Would have to work out the date as I am building a house but I have a few friends on the lake that I am sure we can get you a ride. If you have a 2nd yak then I would go for a paddle with you. Who knows maybe you will change my opinion, maybe I will change yours. If not we will have a fun day.

Chris Craft, I only have one kayak (I’m a financially-challenged, full-time college student). But if you can borrow one, I would be totally willing. But, unless you have cold water gear, we’ll have to wait until late June for the water to be warm enough for you. I’m totally willing to ride in a speed boat on the lake, but that’s not necessary, since I have been in and have operated powerboats before, and I don’t have anything against powerboats. If you’re serious about this, and can rent or borrow a kayak, pm me and we can make plans to get together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I'm sorry to say this but the majority of people here probably think that you're not that smart about your recreation choices. While you are at it why not go for a swim across the broads.

Of course they don’t, because the majority on this forum are power boat operators – who don’t know anything about sea kayaks. Look, I’m not swimming across the lake – I’m using a boat just like everyone else on this forum. The only difference is that I can pick up my boat by myself and that it is human powered.

My sea kayak is designed especially for large bodies of water – so, there is nothing extreme about using it out on my state’s largest lake. I’m a collegiate athlete, and kayaking is one of the things I do to keep in top shape. My “non-smart” recreational choices also include collegiate sailing, and hiking, and cross-country skiing – so I’m probably in better shape that most of you. Only on this forum would a healthy form of recreation be considered to be less safe than speeding across a lake at unlimited speeds. Yeah, there’s no slant here!!!

Quote:

I just don't see this as a speed limit issue. I think you nailed it on the head when you said:"The only reason that I'm not seen is because some powerboat operators are not paying attention."

This is very much a speed limit issue! Why didn’t you post my entire sentence, which concluded with “-or they are traveling faster than their ability.” ??? If high speed boats slowed down perhaps they would have time to see mean – then they could stay out of my 150 foot zone.

Quote:

So as far as I see it you are deliberately putting yourself in harms way. I believe that the operators of every vessel are required to keep a sharp lookout but that is not the case. I know you feel passionately about your right to paddle across the broads but even the swimmers do something to draw attention to themselves. Most "Broads" swimmers swim off a boat and don't venture more than a few feet from it. You Kayaking across the broads isn't much different IMO.

Again, I’m not swimming across the lake. I’m in a boat the is just as much a boat as what you use on the lake.

Quote:

I think most Marine Patrol officers would caution against it, not because of speed, but because of traffic and inattentive boaters. However, being that it is not illegal they couldn't stop you. I bet if you asked them they would prefer it if you didn't do it. A speed limit won't change their mind. With that said why couldn't you make special arrangements with a chase boat when you decide to take on this risky endeavor. Any way you slice it speed limit or no speed limit you are taking a large risk when you kayak across the equivalent of I-93 on lake winni.

Hazelnut - you basically just supported most of the reasons why we need a lake speed limit. Thanks for making my points for me. There is nothing risky about me taking my sea kayak across the lake – other than the fact that some power boat operators are traveling at speeds that make this unsafe for paddlers. I’m in great shape, I’m very experienced at kayaking, and I have all the proper equipment to do this safely. My kayak is 16 feet long and it is bright red, with a white hull – if someone can’t see me then they are going faster than their ability to see. In most conditions I can see another kayak up to a mile away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I think that about 99.657% of boaters realize that it's just not a prudent thing to do in the Main Lake. Perhaps we need to enact some rules and regulations, for safety's sake of course

Why is it not prudent? (see my reply above)

There are people who always get in over their heads – due to inexperience and/or to not using/having the proper equipment – or to not paying attention to the weather. The same thing happens with hiking – but that doesn’t mean that hiking is unsafe.

How many of those rescues were in white-water or out in the ocean? How many were in cold water? How many of those paddlers were not wearing the proper gear? I would guarantee that only a tiny percentage of those rescues involved paddlers in sea kayaks.

I’ve taken coastal navigation and advanced paddling. I have all the proper gear and can do self-rescues. I even have CPR training – since I do my work study on the waterfront, instruction and overseeing the use of kayaks at my university. I have actually assisted a power boat that was in trouble – I have never needed to be rescued and I paddle hundreds of miles each year.

Seaplane Pilot · 05-07-2008, 04:25 PM

You know, every time I'm on an on-ramp to a major highway in NH (Rt. 93, 95, 89) I see a sign that says something like: No horses, bicycles, scooters, etc. They put these signs up for safety reasons. Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses. Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. Time to contact the Senators and Reps to have them introduce a bill. The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

B R · 05-07-2008, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

You know, every time I'm on an on-ramp to a major highway in NH (Rt. 93, 95, 89) I see a sign that says something like: No horses, bicycles, scooters, etc. They put these signs up for safety reasons. Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses. Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. Time to contact the Senators and Reps to have them introduce a bill. The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

a compromise might be to have a 150' law in place. for their own safety and the safety of others, they cannot go more than 150' from shore. boats can't go more than headway speed when that close to shore so no fear of speeding boats.

Cal · 05-07-2008, 07:35 PM

That makes too much sense

Evenstar · 05-08-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses.

That's that problem! We have let high-speed power boaters turn our largest lake into the "equivalent of a major highway."[/quote]

Quote:

Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. . . The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

And what precedence would that be??? The risk of injury or death for powerboaters is much higher than for paddlers. My sea kayak is made for large bodies of water - not for ponds. Name some small lakes and ponds in NH whern I can paddle 20 miles without going around in circles.

My kayak doesn't polute, moves through the water nearly silently, doesn't create damaging wakes - and I am not a risk to others on the lake. And you guys want to ban us!

Quote:

Originally Posted by B R

a compromise might be to have a 150' law in place. for their own safety and the safety of others, they cannot go more than 150' from shore. boats can't go more than headway speed when that close to shore so no fear of speeding boats.

That's not a compromise. And I have had speeding boats violate my 150 foot zone when I've been within 150 feet of shore - since they can travel at unlimited speeds at 151 feet from the shore.

Other than being at risk from powerboats, how is my paddling on the lake unsafe for me - and I would love to know how my kayak and I are making the lake unsafe for others. Please explain that statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cal

That makes too much sense

That makes absolutely no sense and is probably unconstitutional - you can a type of vessel from a recreational body of water, just so others can continue to travel at unlimited speeds.

A speed limit however makes total sense - and doesn't ban anyone.

Seaplane Pilot · 05-08-2008, 11:53 AM

Gee, maybe we should just shut down the major interstate highways as well. Let's go back to horse and buggy travel on dirt paths and cross the oceans in sailing vessels vs. airplanes. It's called progress.

Airwaves · 05-08-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Evenstar
That makes absolutely no sense and is probably unconstitutional - you can a type of vessel from a recreational body of water, just so others can continue to travel at unlimited speeds.

Actually here is a link to a list of recreational bodies of water in New Hampshire that are restricted for use by particular types of vessel etc. So if it's okay to ban or limit various boats that are propelled by an engine why is it unconstitutional to do the same with human powered vessels?

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...estricted.html

Oh, btw when I printed this out it was 20 PAGES LONG!

B R · 05-08-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

That's not a compromise. And I have had speeding boats violate my 150 foot zone when I've been within 150 feet of shore - since they can travel at unlimited speeds at 151 feet from the shore.

Other than being at risk from powerboats, how is my paddling on the lake unsafe for me - and I would love to know how my kayak and I are making the lake unsafe for others. Please explain that statement.

That makes absolutely no sense and is probably unconstitutional - you can a type of vessel from a recreational body of water, just so others can continue to travel at unlimited speeds.

A speed limit however makes total sense - and doesn't ban anyone.

i remember naked people in a canoe just last year (not 30 or 40 years ago) that endangered a boating family last year. if this were law, that probably doesn't happen.

hazelnut · 05-08-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Chris Craft, I only have one kayak (I’m a financially-challenged, full-time college student). But if you can borrow one, I would be totally willing. But, unless you have cold water gear, we’ll have to wait until late June for the water to be warm enough for you. I’m totally willing to ride in a speed boat on the lake, but that’s not necessary, since I have been in and have operated powerboats before, and I don’t have anything against powerboats. If you’re serious about this, and can rent or borrow a kayak, pm me and we can make plans to get together.

[COLOR=black]Of course they don’t, because the majority on this forum are power boat operators – who don’t know anything about sea kayaks. Look, I’m not swimming across the lake – I’m using a boat just like everyone else on this forum. The only difference is that I can pick up my boat by myself and that it is human powered.
My sea kayak is designed especially for large bodies of water – so, there is nothing extreme about using it out on my state’s largest lake. I’m a collegiate athlete, and kayaking is one of the things I do to keep in top shape. My “non-smart” recreational choices also include collegiate sailing, and hiking, and cross-country skiing – so I’m probably in better shape that most of you. Only on this forum would a healthy form of recreation be considered to be less safe than speeding across a lake at unlimited speeds. Yeah, there’s no slant here!!!

This is very much a speed limit issue! Why didn’t you post my entire sentence, which concluded with “-or they are traveling faster than their ability.” ??? If high speed boats slowed down perhaps they would have time to see mean – then they could stay out of my 150 foot zone.

Again, I’m not swimming across the lake. I’m in a boat the is just as much a boat as what you use on the lake.
Hazelnut - you basically just supported most of the reasons why we need a lake speed limit. Thanks for making my points for me. There is nothing risky about me taking my sea kayak across the lake – other than the fact that some power boat operators are traveling at speeds that make this unsafe for paddlers. I’m in great shape, I’m very experienced at kayaking, and I have all the proper equipment to do this safely. [COLOR=black]My kayak is 16 feet long and it is bright red, with a white hull – if someone can’t see me then they are going faster than their ability to see. In most conditions I can see another kayak up to a mile away.[/COLOR
Why is it not prudent? (see my reply above)
Thee are people who always get in over their heads – due to inexperience and/or to not using/having the proper equipment – or to not paying attention to the weather. The same thing happens with hiking – but that doesn’t mean that hiking is unsafe.
How many of those rescues were in white-water or out in the ocean? How many were in cold water? How many of those paddlers were not wearing the proper gear? I would guarantee that only a tiny percentage of those rescues involved paddlers in sea kayaks.

I’ve taken coastal navigation and advanced paddling. I have all the proper gear and can do self-rescues. I even have CPR training – since I do my work study on the waterfront, instruction and overseeing the use of kayaks at my university. I have actually assisted a power boat that was in trouble – I have never needed to be rescued and I paddle hundreds of miles each year.

Not only are YOU self centered but you fail at comprehension.
I'll slow it down for you. A speed limit does not equate to attention. A boat traveling at 45, 35, or 25 operated by an inattentive operator is 100 times more dangerous than a boat operating at 75MPH with an attentive operator. You obviously have ZERO high speed boating experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works. I'll try to spell it out. Boaters operating at high speeds usually focus all of their attention on the task at hand and keep the sharpest of sharp lookouts. Casual boaters cruising at or around 25-30MPH are much more likely to take a casual approach and get lulled into a sense of security while they carry on and converse, sightsee, etc and end up failing to keep a sharp watch. I've seen it and encountered it daily.
Sorry I'll never ever agree that kayaking in the broads is wise speed limit or no speed limit. I think it is dumb actually. Tell me you can't get a good workout hugging the shoreline? Comparing your craft to powerboats is absolutely ridiculous. Your profile in the water is much closer to a swimmer. If you can't understand that there is no point in even discussing rational thoughts with you. Just like swimming in the broads alone is stupid, so is kayaking in the broads. There is a place for everyone on the lake to do their favorite activity. You think everyone else is selfish yet you are the only one trying to take away somebodies activities. Coves are for skiing, shoreline for kayaks, paddleboats and canoes, large open spaces for speed boats. How is that not sharing. No, you want it all and if you can't have it you'll kick and scream and tell everyone else that they are wrong. The whole argument is ridiculous. If I saw a canoe in the broads I'd rescue them because I would be sure they'd be in trouble. A canoe is more visible than a kayak. Why would you even THINK to go out there. I'll make this SAME statement after the speed limit passes. The speed limit will not change any of the above statements.

Evenstar · 05-08-2008, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Gee, maybe we should just shut down the major interstate highways as well. Let's go back to horse and buggy travel on dirt paths and cross the oceans in sailing vessels vs. airplanes. It's called progress.

And progress often requires new regulations - the laws have changed / are changing.

There is nothing old-fashioned about me or my kayak. My sea kayak is made out of a high-tech, light-weight composite material, called Airalite - that wasn't even available a few years ago. Even my paddle is high-tech. And, when the water is cold, I wear a high-tech breathable drysuit.

Perhaps you are the one who needs to adjust the this new eco-friendly world. Gas-gusseling high-speed boats are so out there. High-tech paddling is the new in thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B R

i remember naked people in a canoe just last year (not 30 or 40 years ago) that endangered a boating family last year. if this were law, that probably doesn't happen.

That's really stretching things - as far as I know, it is just as possible to be naked in a powerboat or to be naked within 150 feet of shore. And how was the boating family actually "endangered" by this? In all my paddling, I have never once encountered a naked paddler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Not only are YOU self centered but you fail at comprehension. I'll slow it down for you. A speed limit does not equate to attention. A boat traveling at 45, 35, or 25 operated by an inattentive operator is 100 times more dangerous than a boat operating at 75MPH with an attentive operator. You obviously have ZERO high speed boating experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works. I'll try to spell it out. Boaters operating at high speeds usually focus all of their attention on the task at hand and keep the sharpest of sharp lookouts. Casual boaters cruising at or around 25-30MPH are much more likely to take a casual approach and get lulled into a sense of security while they carry on and converse, sightsee, etc and end up failing to keep a sharp watch.

Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?

Excuse me; I have no trouble at comprehension. I’m likely smarter than you, so don’t treat me like an idiot just because I happen to disagree with you.

Now let me explain something to you. Inattention above 45 mph is more dangerous than intention at slower speeds – simply because you are traveling faster – anyone with any sense at all knows that. Show me any scientific evidence that proves that higher speeds actually increase a person’s attention span. A person who is inattentive at 35mph will still be just as inattentive at 70mph.

How many powerboat operators have Attention Deficit Disorder? How many consume alcohol while they are boating? How many have less than perfect vision? If all high-speed operators are so acutely attentive, why don’t they see me in time to stay clear of my 150 foot zone?

I contend that slowing down increases your ability to see better – if that isn’t true, then why can I see other kayaks a mile off, while operators of boats traveling at high speeds seem to have so much trouble seeing me?

Quote:

Sorry I'll never ever agree that kayaking in the broads is wise speed limit or no speed limit. I think it is dumb actually. Tell me you can't get a good workout hugging the shoreline? Comparing your craft to powerboats is absolutely ridiculous. Your profile in the water is much closer to a swimmer. If you can't understand that there is no point in even discussing rational thoughts with you. Just like swimming in the broads alone is stupid, so is kayaking in the broads. There is a place for everyone on the lake to do their favorite activity.

Hazelnut, you’re not “sorry,” so please quit posting that you are. But you are a powerboat snob, if you actually think that it isn't “a real boat" unless it has a motor! My kayak is actually more sea worthy than many powerboats.

There is nothing “stupid” about taking a SEA KAYAK across the Broads – my kayak is designed to handle large waves, and I’m very experienced – and have all the proper gear. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Do you even know what one looks like? “You obviously have ZERO” sea kayaking “experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works.”

Quote:

You think everyone else is selfish yet you are the only one trying to take away somebodies activities. Coves are for skiing, shoreline for kayaks, paddleboats and canoes, large open spaces for speed boats. How is that not sharing.

Who gave you the right to divide up the lake, and to exclude others from using ‘your part’??? The main lake is not and never will be the private domain of powerboats.

All a speed limit does is make you slow down to what the state has determined is a safer speed for others on the lake – it doesn’t kick you off the lake, of permit you from using any part of the lake – and you think that is unfair, while stating that paddlers should not be able to use the entire lake just so you can travel at unlimited speeds on it. Others, who I was replying to here, have stated outright that kayaks should not even be permitted on the lake at all!

Chris Craft · 05-08-2008, 05:55 PM

I have as of late had more problems with Kayaks then jet ski's. Come in to the harbor (ocean) and they are lined up tip to tail across the channel clogging it up so that I have no place to go. This is in a 45 mile per hour zone. That is unsafe but not because of my speed but because they are clogging up the entire channel. There is no need for it. By your rational Evenstar I should be able to drop my speed boat in any lake and drive it up to any posted speed limit. There are lakes that restrict our ability to go on them. So why is it so unfair for us to be able to safely use lake Winni?

As the poster above staited when some one drives a boat at a high rate of speed their attention goes to what they are doing. I can not tell you how many times that I have seen sail boats collide especially around race courses.

People are just way to anxious to legislate us trying to make it so that no one can ever get hurt/die. You can not do that. Live Free or die..... not any more I guess....

Seaplane Pilot · 05-08-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Not only are YOU self centered but you fail at comprehension.
I'll slow it down for you. A speed limit does not equate to attention. A boat traveling at 45, 35, or 25 operated by an inattentive operator is 100 times more dangerous than a boat operating at 75MPH with an attentive operator. You obviously have ZERO high speed boating experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works. I'll try to spell it out. Boaters operating at high speeds usually focus all of their attention on the task at hand and keep the sharpest of sharp lookouts. Casual boaters cruising at or around 25-30MPH are much more likely to take a casual approach and get lulled into a sense of security while they carry on and converse, sightsee, etc and end up failing to keep a sharp watch. I've seen it and encountered it daily.
Sorry I'll never ever agree that kayaking in the broads is wise speed limit or no speed limit. I think it is dumb actually. Tell me you can't get a good workout hugging the shoreline? Comparing your craft to powerboats is absolutely ridiculous. Your profile in the water is much closer to a swimmer. If you can't understand that there is no point in even discussing rational thoughts with you. Just like swimming in the broads alone is stupid, so is kayaking in the broads. There is a place for everyone on the lake to do their favorite activity. You think everyone else is selfish yet you are the only one trying to take away somebodies activities. Coves are for skiing, shoreline for kayaks, paddleboats and canoes, large open spaces for speed boats. How is that not sharing. No, you want it all and if you can't have it you'll kick and scream and tell everyone else that they are wrong. The whole argument is ridiculous. If I saw a canoe in the broads I'd rescue them because I would be sure they'd be in trouble. A canoe is more visible than a kayak. Why would you even THINK to go out there. I'll make this SAME statement after the speed limit passes. The speed limit will not change any of the above statements.

Well said H-Nut. They want everyone else to compromise but themselves. I hope the majority of the Senate have the intestinal fortitude to flush this bill down the toilet where it belongs. I can tell you one thing: if it passes, there will be a major house cleaning in Concord (which is actually a benefit) and Class Action lawsuits will by flying everywhere. I may just go get my law degree so I can make enough money to go buy a nice, big offshore race boat and bring it to Winni!

hazelnut · 05-09-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?
Excuse me; I have no trouble at comprehension. I’m likely smarter than you, so don’t treat me like an idiot just because I happen to disagree with you.
Now let me explain something to you. Inattention above 45 mph is more dangerous than intention at slower speeds – simply because you are traveling faster – anyone with any sense at all knows that. Show me any scientific evidence that proves that higher speeds actually increase a person’s attention span. A person who is inattentive at 35mph will still be just as inattentive at 70mph.
How many powerboat operators have Attention Deficit Disorder? How many consume alcohol while they are boating? How many have less than perfect vision? If all high-speed operators are so acutely attentive, why don’t they see me in time to stay clear of my 150 foot zone?
I contend that slowing down increases your ability to see better – if that isn’t true, then why can I see other kayaks a mile off, while operators of boats traveling at high speeds seem to have so much trouble seeing me?
Hazelnut, you’re not “sorry,” so please quit posting that you are. But you are a powerboat snob, if you actually think that it isn't “a real boat" unless it has a motor! My kayak is actually more sea worthy than many powerboats.
There is nothing “stupid” about taking a SEA KAYAK across the Broads – my kayak is designed to handle large waves, and I’m very experienced – and have all the proper gear. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Do you even know what one looks like? “You obviously have ZERO” sea kayaking “experience so there is absolutely no way you could or would ever comprehend how it works.”
Who gave you the right to divide up the lake, and to exclude others from using ‘your part’??? The main lake is not and never will be the private domain of powerboats.
All a speed limit does is make you slow down to what the state has determined is a safer speed for others on the lake – it doesn’t kick you off the lake, of permit you from using any part of the lake – and you think that is unfair, while stating that paddlers should not be able to use the entire lake just so you can travel at unlimited speeds on it. Others, who I was replying to here, have stated outright that kayaks should not even be permitted on the lake at all!

Yeah that's it

You're smarter, and stronger than everyone on this forum

Evanstar you are so far gone down the Self Centered highway you can't even see how Self Centered you are. I do Kayak, actually I do it often. I also powerboat often. My point was that the lake is such a large resource that there is enough room for everyone. But you are so blinded and narrow minded you fail to yield the point that you could keep to the shores and allow power boaters their space. Just as I don't tear around coves when people are water skiing. I also steer well clear of sailboats, whether in groups or alone.

All I'm saying is that this lake is unique in that it offers recreation for all. You can't handle that though, you want want want. You also think you will be all of a sudden magically safer after the speed limit. I continue to stand by my post that it is dumb to kayak in the broads speed limit or no speed limit. And you're right about that I make zero apologies about that statement. As for me being a power boat snob, laughable. I love canoing and kayaking, there is no better way to see the lake. I just do it safely, for my safety and that of the power boaters. You are a power boat hater so you think your rights trump everyone else's.

Just a bit of advice Mr He-man Smartypants, there will always be someone who is smarter, stronger, faster than you. That attitude will get you in some pretty big trouble some day. You know nothing about most of these posters and I've seen you insult them regularly, most recently:

... so I’m probably in better shape that most of you.
and
I’m likely smarter than you,

All that sounds like is that you still live at home and have a lot to learn.

Evenstar · 05-09-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

I have as of late had more problems with Kayaks then jet ski's. Come in to the harbor (ocean) and they are lined up tip to tail across the channel clogging it up so that I have no place to go. This is in a 45 mile per hour zone. That is unsafe but not because of my speed but because they are clogging up the entire channel. There is no need for it.

I can cite all sorts of bad powerboat behavior too, but unless it is speed related, it really doesn’t belong in this thread.

I have the right to kayak on the entire lake, but that doesn’t mean that I feel that I have the right to get in the way of other vessels. I pay very close attention to where powerboats are heading and give them plenty of room. I also kayak on the ocean and supervise kayak use at my university’s waterfront. Students are never permitted to kayak out into the shipping lanes.

Quote:

By your rational Evenstar I should be able to drop my speed boat in any lake and drive it up to any posted speed limit. There are lakes that restrict our ability to go on them. So why is it so unfair for us to be able to safely use lake Winni?

No, because there are legitimate reasons for banning powerboats on small bodies of water. There is no legitimate reason for banning paddlers on a lake that permits powerboats – since we have the least environmental impact of any vessel. The only reasons that posters here want to ban paddlers is so they can travel on Winni at unlimited speeds.

Quote:

As the poster above staited when some one drives a boat at a high rate of speed their attention goes to what they are doing. I can not tell you how many times that I have seen sail boats collide especially around race courses.

You guys can make all the claims you want, but no one has yet provided any scientific proof that a person’s attention automatically increases as speed increases. How many powerboat operators have ADA? How many consume alcohol while they are boating? How many have less than perfect vision? If all high-speed operators are so acutely attentive, why don’t they see me in time to stay clear of my 150 foot zone?

As far as the sailboat colliding part, have you ever raced a sailboat? I’m a collegiate sailor and a member of the Intercollegiate Sailing Association. My university team is one of the top-rated teams in North America. When you race sailboats, it is totally different than recreational sailing. We are constantly “on edge” and push ourselves and our boats to the limit (and sometimes over) – that’s the only way that you can win races. We have an entire book of rules that we must follow, but we race within inches of other boats. And when the wind shifts, or when someone doesn’t sail perfectly, we collide. That’s because we are RACING.

Quote:

People are just way to anxious to legislate us trying to make it so that no one can ever get hurt/die. You can not do that. Live Free or die..... not any more I guess....

No, this legislation is so that we can all use the lake safely. The majority of NH Legislators and residents believe that it is not safe to allow powerboats to travel at unlimited speeds on a lake that is populated by smaller, slower moving vessels. "Live Free or Die" applies to paddlers too – and our free use of the lake is being negatively impacted by the unlimited speeds of powerboats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Well said H-Nut. They want everyone else to compromise but themselves. I hope the majority of the Senate have the intestinal fortitude to flush this bill down the toilet where it belongs. I can tell you one thing: if it passes, there will be a major house cleaning in Concord (which is actually a benefit) and Class Action lawsuits will by flying everywhere. I may just go get my law degree so I can make enough money to go buy a nice, big offshore race boat and bring it to Winni!

What compromises have power boat operators made? Name just one. You guys are just used to getting your own way, and don’t care if your actions are negatively affecting others. It’s the same old “I have more horsepower/money, so get out of my way” attitude again. You even want to ban us from using the main lake, or ban us from the entire lake, just so you can still have your own way.

Well, that’s not going to happen. We’ve already made enough compromises with this bill – it has been watered down with amendments for the benefit of powerboaters – it now will only applies to Winni (instead of to all NH lakes); and it now has a 2-year sunset clause. But that’s not good enough for you. I’m done compromising.

Good luck with the Class Action lawsuit. That would be like trying to sue the state for having highway speed limits.

Evenstar · 05-09-2008, 10:16 AM

Haselnut, the only question that you answered from my previous post was: "Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?"

Apparently the answer is "yes." (based on your reply, since it served no other purpose here).

#1) You insulted me by treating me like an idiot, just because I disagree with you - I was merely defending myself - but I was recruited by my university, and my tuition is mostly paid for by academic scholarships.

#2) My "unsmart" physical activities do keep me fit, and I'm a collegiate athlete. Both are true statements. How many on this forum are currently in good enough shape to compete on a collegiate team? My statement that "I’m probably in better shape that most of you" is likely an accurate accessment.

#3) I posted "SEA KAYAK" not kayak or canoe - "Have you even been in a sea kayak?"

#4) An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer. It's not magic - it's a fact that, all else being equal, going slower is safer.

#5) I don't hate powerboats - I just hate the attitudes of some powerboat owners.

#6) I'm a She

#7) I own my own home in Littleton. Just because I'm a full-time university student doesn't mean that I'm a kid.

That's it! I'm done defending myself. Go harrass someone else.

VtSteve · 05-09-2008, 10:19 AM

Isn't youth grand?

No comments on this one?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...kayaking/7360/

Rescuers cite need to regulate kayaking

Published: April 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM

We just had a couple of overturned kayakers rescued this week, they were drunk.

05-02-2008, 09:14 AM	#108
parrothead Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Merrimack, NH Posts: 132 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Wake argument still not jiving BI I would think that if you lived near a transition from a No Wake to non-No Wake you would prefer performance boats. Because the engine is not what makes a wake, the boat hull does. The horsepower does go somewhere, it goes to moving the boat forward. The definition of a wake from wikipedia is "a wake is the region of turbulence around a solid body moving relative to the water, caused by the flow of liquid around the body. The wake leading the body is caused by the compression of the liquid medium by the moving body, and is often called a bow wake when observed preceding a watercraft. As with all wave forms, it spreads outward from the source until its energy is overcome or lost, usually by friction or dispersion." The engine provides thrust not the wake. As the props spin they provide the thrust to move the boat through the water. The shape of the hull determines the type of wake a boat produces. Descriptions of different hull types from wikipedia. * Displacement -the hull is supported exclusively or predominantly by the pressure of water displaced by the hull * Semi-displacement, or semi-planing - the hull form is capable of developing a moderate amount of dynamic lift, however, most of the vessel's weight is still supported through displacement * Planing - the Planing Hull form is configured to develop positive dynamic pressure so that its draft decreases with increasing speed. Performance boats are planing hulls. So as they move through the water their wakes decrease. A boat with a planing hull with "enough" horsepower, will be able to transition faster from a big wake to a small wake. As the power increases the positive dynamic pressure increases lifting the hull out of the water. So performance boats are actually good for shoreline erosion. Now cruisers on the other hand being semi-displacement are worse so lets get rid of them. Or increase their horsepower so they have enough thrust to push those hulls up on plane. The only reason I can see for not liking performance boats when they transition from no wake up to speed is that they are noisy. So I would accept that performance boats do cause more noise pollution. My neighbor has a Harley with loud pipes, can I banish him too? I don't buy that performance boats are more of a threat to shoreline erosion, and birds nests. __________________ If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

05-03-2008, 06:53 AM	#122
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,941 Thanks: 2,213 Thanked 778 Times in 554 Posts	Life After Speed Limits—The Topic: Once HB-847 is enacted, I will ask one Lakes Region website to open its doors to new members when the spamming finally ceases there. Another website will not be "moving" speed limit threads, and still another that will not be "purging" their Boating Forums entirely. Another, www.tuftonboroforums.com was closed down due to the dreaded Unlimited-Speeds onslaught, and could very well re-open for business. __________________ Is it "Common Sense" isn't.

05-05-2008, 09:51 PM	#174
luckypete Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: cow island Posts: 27 Thanks: 33 Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts	A simple solution Greetings all, OK... now I want everyone to take a deep breath...go ahead...I'll wait.....now, don't you feel better? No, ok let's try another one....that's good....breathe in...hold it....slow exhale....nice. There, now that the blood pressure is under control, I have a proposal. It may sound crazy at first, but Bear with me. (how did you like the pun?) There's a little lake just north of Winni that goes by the name of Squam. I understand that there are certain "restrictions" on that body of water which are appealing to some and not so appealing to others. Whether it's size restrictions on boats, conditional land use permits or whatever, it sounds like a nice quiet, slow, safe and serene body of water. No GFBL's (what does that stand for by the way?), no kayakers in immediate danger of being....of being...I don't know, what are kayakers in immediate danger of again? The loons up there, I am told, are much more...what's the word?... Loonish than they are on Winni! And yes, whether you believe it or not, the little children up there are well above average. Doesn't it sound like a dream? Hmmm...come on, I know some of you feel that way right? Well here's my idea. Leave! If other people are having too much fun, or being silly or enjoying themselves in a way that you find unpalatable, just remove yourself from that environment. It's simple really. Put up the old For Sale sign, put your stuff in a boat and go! Just head north, buy a place on Squam or Rust Pond or Mirror lake or Beach Pond or wherever. All of these places are beautiful and maybe more to your liking. No....are you sure? I'm serious, I'll think you'll be happier there. Are you sure you really want to stay on the big lake? I mean, when it gets really windy, the waves can get scary out there. Perhaps something a little less intimidating would be more to your liking. Seriously, 99% of the folks operating a boat on the lake are doing so in a safe manner. So what is really getting under you skin is the so called "one percenters". And guess what, there is no legislation or enforcement that will ever keep us 100% safe. Welcome to life!

05-07-2008, 07:35 PM	#188
Cal Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Pitman , NJ Posts: 627 Thanks: 40 Thanked 21 Times in 12 Posts	That makes too much sense __________________ Paddle faster , I think I here banjos

05-09-2008, 10:16 AM	#199
Evenstar Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Littleton, NH Posts: 382 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Haselnut, the only question that you answered from my previous post was: "Haselnut, are you just on this forum to insult others?" Apparently the answer is "yes." (based on your reply, since it served no other purpose here). #1) You insulted me by treating me like an idiot, just because I disagree with you - I was merely defending myself - but I was recruited by my university, and my tuition is mostly paid for by academic scholarships. #2) My "unsmart" physical activities do keep me fit, and I'm a collegiate athlete. Both are true statements. How many on this forum are currently in good enough shape to compete on a collegiate team? My statement that "I’m probably in better shape that most of you" is likely an accurate accessment. #3) I posted "SEA KAYAK" not kayak or canoe - "Have you even been in a sea kayak?" #4) An enforced speed limit will make any lake safer. It's not magic - it's a fact that, all else being equal, going slower is safer. #5) I don't hate powerboats - I just hate the attitudes of some powerboat owners. #6) I'm a She #7) I own my own home in Littleton. Just because I'm a full-time university student doesn't mean that I'm a kid. That's it! I'm done defending myself. Go harrass someone else. __________________ "Boaters love boats . . . Kayakers love water."

05-02-2008, 08:42 AM	#106
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,506 Thanks: 221 Thanked 817 Times in 490 Posts	I have no problem with BI bringing Long Lake into the equation, it is in our back yard. My problem is that other than his THEORY that a speed limit may keep this type of boat off Winnipesaukee, a speed limit would not prevent the Long Lake accident from happening here. No factual data exists that a speed limit would prevent this. It can happen on a street with speed limits and it happens more often than on the lake, why would a speed limit on the water prevent it? It wouldn't. Drinking and driving is the cause of the accident. the boat didn't do it, the drunk driver did. A speed limit will not prevent it from happening here, and being that it appears all high speed accidents that have happened here have been alcohol induced, nothing will change.

05-02-2008, 06:15 PM	#114
Islander Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 321 Thanks: 0 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	This is where the faithful jump in with a list of silly reasons why those 4 or 5 deaths don't count.

05-02-2008, 07:35 PM	#115
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	Again, I guess I should clarify. What speeds did those accidents occur at? Were the speeds above or below the proposed limit? And remember..."excessive speed" does not equal anything over 45. And what was the primary cause of the accidents?

05-03-2008, 03:24 AM	#120
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	You can do all the research you want, sit on my dock for a weekend and you will know the facts about wake. I can tell by the sound of the waves hitting the shore when a Marine Patrol boat is in sight. You made the statement.. "the safety concern was that there were too many boats out on the weekends not speed" Even Woodsy has admitted that a speed limit will lower the number of boats on the lake. HB847 isn't just about speed. A speed limit will make the lake less hectic and crowded. Not a lot, but a little. Perhaps that is why the camp directors support HB847.

05-04-2008, 01:23 PM	#141
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I seem to remember, which is tougher after all these years, that the camp boats themselves used to make me slow down so I wouldn't get jarred. Those big hulls made for some waves. I think the wave issue and erosion issue ought to be discarded. I'll take the wake from a 42 Fountain anyday over a 32' Carver or whatever the barge of choice is nowadays.

05-04-2008, 03:12 PM	#147
chipj29 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bow Posts: 1,874 Thanks: 521 Thanked 308 Times in 162 Posts	Well that sucks that people don't obey the NWZ. And I mean that seriously. However, it is great that people slow down when MP is around to enforce the current law.

05-04-2008, 09:37 PM	#153
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	BI Why don't you and your neighbors petition to have the NWZ extended? I've always felt that it is too small, and adjust my behavior accordingly. I'd even be happy to show up at a hearing and speak in favor of expanding the NWZ! Silver Duck

05-05-2008, 07:28 AM	#156
Chris Craft Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 120 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The reality of the situation is that if the speed boats were quite we would not be having this conversation now. I have talked to a few legislatures and they all say that is the main reason for the complaining. Most MP's will tell you that speed boats are not a safty concern. Most people that drive them have a very large amount of time under their belts. That is not to say that they are never involved in accidents but they are involved in very few. The noise is what bothers most people. The Long Lake Accident we still do not know much about. They have kept the details of that accident very hush hush. We still do not know if Ray Trotts boat (the smaller one) had his lights on or not. There are a lot of other details that we still do not know about. I am sure it will all come out in the trial. Then we can talk about that accident with some facts.

05-05-2008, 10:44 AM	#158
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,764 Thanks: 32 Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts	I'm not sure increasing the size of the NWZ will make any difference. It's already about three times as large as the law allows. And it isn't about wake its about slowing people down in a crowded area. The biggest advantage of the NWZ is it keeps many boats away. Before the NWZ was enacted that was the most scary place on the lake. Worse than Eagle island was. In general I don't think laws that require intense enforcement are the best answer. The NWZ solved 99% of the problems it was intended to solve. If the MP could show up more often and make it 99.9% that would be great, it's not likely to happen however.

05-05-2008, 10:48 AM	#159
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	I'd say a 99% success rate is pretty good....

05-05-2008, 03:07 PM	#165
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	It's so much easier to get a consensus of opinion when the facts and the truth come out. If the intention of most people had been to, 1) Address the noise issue 2) Address the boaters speeding though congested areas then, I think you'd have had most people on board, assisting in the process. Instead of coming up with crap like wakes and erosion, not to mention malarkey about accidents and speed, we might all be talking about a new bill to add to the marine patrol's budget to enforce existing laws, and also expanding NWZ. This is how things work. I'm certain that the lake would be a far better place if the law is not passed, and everyone proceeds along those lines. Now that "those" boat owners know what could happen, perhaps a little self-policing would be in order. It's rather obvious from the debates where the most problems are, and clearly obvious where the most upset people are. In this day and age, having a marine patrol segment dedicated to certain trouble spots on a rotating basis is very doable.

05-05-2008, 05:55 PM	#168
ITD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 2,932 Thanks: 478 Thanked 694 Times in 389 Posts	Dear Senators: Once again we are seeing posts about how this is not a concern or that is not a concern. Another favorite is the "we tried to compromise", or "I would rather have had a horsepower limit", or fast boats make wakes that kill loons, or an accident a few years ago caused by a drunk not looking where he was going somehow magically would have been prevented by a speed limit. The bottom line: A SPEED LIMIT WILL SOLVE NOTHING, a speed limit will cause enforcement officers to move to the Broads looking for speeders who don't exist or are few and far between taking them away from much more productive public safety oriented tasks. Why???? So a few people on an island (or islands) can put the first notch in their belt in their effort to remove boats from the lake. Don't fall for it Senators, your job, is to see through frenzies stirred up by rabble-rousers and do the right thing. The right thing here is to defeat this bill.

05-05-2008, 07:53 PM	#169
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	BI There's a legal limit to the size of an NWZ? How does that work? Silver Duck

05-07-2008, 04:25 PM	#186
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 664 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	You know, every time I'm on an on-ramp to a major highway in NH (Rt. 93, 95, 89) I see a sign that says something like: No horses, bicycles, scooters, etc. They put these signs up for safety reasons. Now, in my opinion, Winnipesaukee is the lake equivalent of a major highway, and kayaks, canoes, paddle boats, etc., are the water equivalent of scooters, bicycles and horses. Therefore, I believe that we should ban the use of kayaks, canoes and paddle boats on Winnipesaukee (for their own safety) and force them to utilize the lake equivalent of secondary roads, i.e smaller lakes and ponds. This sounds logical and fair to me. Time to contact the Senators and Reps to have them introduce a bill. The precedence is certainly in place for this to pass.

05-08-2008, 11:53 AM	#190
Seaplane Pilot Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,177 Thanks: 664 Thanked 943 Times in 368 Posts	Gee, maybe we should just shut down the major interstate highways as well. Let's go back to horse and buggy travel on dirt paths and cross the oceans in sailing vessels vs. airplanes. It's called progress.

05-08-2008, 05:55 PM	#195
Chris Craft Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 120 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I have as of late had more problems with Kayaks then jet ski's. Come in to the harbor (ocean) and they are lined up tip to tail across the channel clogging it up so that I have no place to go. This is in a 45 mile per hour zone. That is unsafe but not because of my speed but because they are clogging up the entire channel. There is no need for it. By your rational Evenstar I should be able to drop my speed boat in any lake and drive it up to any posted speed limit. There are lakes that restrict our ability to go on them. So why is it so unfair for us to be able to safely use lake Winni? As the poster above staited when some one drives a boat at a high rate of speed their attention goes to what they are doing. I can not tell you how many times that I have seen sail boats collide especially around race courses. People are just way to anxious to legislate us trying to make it so that no one can ever get hurt/die. You can not do that. Live Free or die..... not any more I guess....

05-09-2008, 10:19 AM	#200
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	Isn't youth grand? No comments on this one? http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New...kayaking/7360/ Rescuers cite need to regulate kayaking Published: April 30, 2008 at 10:24 AM We just had a couple of overturned kayakers rescued this week, they were drunk.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode